NationStates Jolt Archive

What really is the point of all these arguements in the forums?

A resolution should be passed based strictly on what it says not on what its defenders in the quorum say. Just because one of the intelligent few among you like Mikitivity say that other provisions are possible to go along with a resolution and make the case workable, such as has been with this ballast water issue, does not change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed and should not be passed. If this water ballast proposal had been written so that it would provide for the numerous long-term benefits then I would agree to vote for the resolution. However that is not the case and with the hundreds of rubber stampers that have the nerve to call themselves UN members as they pass every single resolution that passes through those hallowed halls.

:( I continue my futile attepts to talk sense though I know that I will come to no Avail. I just wish once that one of these poorly worded bills that are simply incapable of standing alone and being capable of standing up to debate without additional information being added would fail.

I am admittedly defeated on this issue not by any of my opponents but by the overwhelming number of idiots who pass every resolution they see, or which they see debated in front of them

on the surface of it, it seems that the resolution at hand is quite altruistic.
it seems to me that it simply seeks to prevent the unwanted transfer of species
what is it about this resolution that bothers you
I realize that the debate is now moot but it does not obviate my curiosity about your objections

my problem mostly is just that strictly by what was said in the resolution excluding all debate, as a resolution should be taken, I cannot see my economy as benefiting.

this morning I began debating how each part of the resolution would damage the economy of both my country and others. I lobbied to multiple UN delegates gained tha support of a few but meanwhile the massive assult by quite knowledgeable people on the subject adding new information to the topic gained ten times the support for the other guy.
Coupled with the friggin rubber stampers who vote for every friggin resolution that comes up I stand no chance.

I just see no real point in having a vote or a debate on any of the issues that come up. why not just let every proposal that gains enough approvals pass into legislation?

a) Correct me if I’m wrong but most nations who voted ‘yes’ know about the damage to the economy but feel it is justifiable.

b) You seem to be upset that people are disagreeing with you. They’ll do that.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

What really is the point of all these arguements in the forums?

A resolution should be passed based strictly on what it says not on what its defenders in the quorum say. Just because one of the intelligent few among you like Mikitivity say that other provisions are possible to go along with a resolution and make the case workable, such as has been with this ballast water issue, does not change the fact that the resolution at vote is flawed and should not be passed. If this water ballast proposal had been written so that it would provide for the numerous long-term benefits then I would agree to vote for the resolution. However that is not the case and with the hundreds of rubber stampers that have the nerve to call themselves UN members as they pass every single resolution that passes through those hallowed halls.

:( I continue my futile attepts to talk sense though I know that I will come to no Avail. I just wish once that one of these poorly worded bills that are simply incapable of standing alone and being capable of standing up to debate without additional information being added would fail.

I am admittedly defeated on this issue not by any of my opponents but by the overwhelming number of idiots who pass every resolution they see, or which they see debated in front of them

[OUT OF CHARACTER:

None of us knows why 10,000+ people voted in favour of the proposal. I personally can account for 600s of votes though, as I've been lobbying for this proposal in my regional forum. The people there were in total support and my regional delegate voted in favour ... adding 100s of votes. I also emailed my friends and asked them to vote yes as well.

The truth is, in real life I am a registered environmental engineer, and not only are my arguements coming from information I've gotten from attending professional conferences, but large parts of the proposal were stolen from existing ballast water management techniques. Canada, the United States, Australia, and finally the UN's Interntional Maritime Organization all have different variations of the same resolution we are debating.

It isn't that hard to find out. When a proposal becomes a resolution, I routinely do a google search to education myself. I'm guessing that although 1,000s of voters never read this forum, that many of them did the same.

Let's be honest here. How many of you knew what Ballast Water was before this month? I'm guessing less than half. That is why when I saw the original proposal come up, I emailed the author Jamalya and added a defition of what ballast was and why it is important in shipping to the resolution.

Why did I do this? Because, in real life, I work with this stuff and knew that many of the people playing this game think they know a lot more about environmental protection than they really do. Jamalya did, but I didn't want to see something that is a real strong international environmental topic be blasted out of this UN because people are at times ignorant.

I was even telling my regional group, that it hardly matters if the resolution passes or fails. By now, even the people making up B.S. about why this is a bad resolution, are honestly going to know what Ballast Water and Invasive Species are. They might act like they know it all on this forum, but when they read their newspapers and see the subject on the news in a year or two, they can say, "Yeah, I know a bit out that."

Many of the arguments you are seeing against the proposal are because I'm not being diplomatic at all. I'm trying to anger people a bit, to keep the threads going.

Let's be honest. I've posted several dozen links and credible sources, and I've yet to see any of them disputed. There isn't a real debate going on about the issue, but just posturing. I mean, I could just ignore the obvious "this is wrong" posts, but I personally didn't want to do that. I'm not playing NationStates to have great game stats. I'm playing to actually challenge people to think about real world problems *and* to see if a group of total strangers can pass a series of laws that work together and possibly make for a better world.

That said, who knows why each player plays the games. NationStates is great fun, because you can play to just get the best civil rights. You can play to get the best tax rate. You can play for any combination of game stats. Heck, you can play and totally ignore game stats.

Many players are active in the international forums, and I imagine after a while I'll get bored with many of the UN debates (especially the, "But this will hurt my economy game stat" argument we see every freaking day here) and run off to the international forums. My regional group makes treaties with others and is slowly building an army ... for defensive purposes I'm sure. ;)

Anyway, I think it is wrong to assume that out of those 10,000 people that vote yes on most resolutions that they don't know any better than us what is best for their nations. It could be that they are voting on what they think would be best for their people without giving a second thought to thinks like the grammar or subtle details hidden in the sentences.

I know I've choosen some issues for my country that have hurt my economy, because I thought the choice was better than the one that would short-term have a better game stat.

As for long-term benefits to things ... NationStates admittedly has some problems. For one, the game was never intended to have so many players. NationStates v2 will fix that by being a pay site. People will probably do a finer job of roleplaying as well. But the game also doesn't have long-term penalities for things either. In the real world, if you live in a dictatorship (Father Knows Best State), your citizens are gonna be immigrating to other countries. We've all see this. But now our populations grow at the same rates. The truth is, we can have smog filled skies, and our people live as long as people in countries with clean water. In the real world, this ain't the case. There is a clear connection between long-term planning and basic quality of life issues.

So if you are in the game for short-term gains, then you're gonna constantly find yourself at odds with other players like myself that are playing a completely different game: the long-term game.

Please keep in mind that none of us is doing this to grief or screw around with another player. It is just a simple fact of life that when you get 10,000 to 30,000 players in one game, that you'll naturally have hundreds of different ways people play the game. In a strange way, that really is the point of NationStates ... different strokes for different folks.

BTW: I'm not saying this to change anybody's votes. Hell, if you haven't cast your vote based on anything that we've all said by now, I don't think you'll see us say anything else to change your mind. But I don't want people frustated by the voting habits of the other players. Ignore them and play your own game.

Cheers,
-Michael /OOC]

The Ennish delegates applauded Mikitivity for the long, informative, OOC speech.

We'd just like to congratulate the representative from Mikivity for the heroic amount of effort he has put into this laudable proposal, sticking to his principles and maintaining even-handedness under opposition that has ranged from telling criticism to (somewhat more frequently) ignorant accusations and outright whining. We have some idea of the scale of work it takes to pass a UN proposal even when its subject is well-known to everybody; although we consider ourselves reasonable people, we feel certain we should have availed ourselves of the Rep. of Komokom's culinary equipment by now.

Jeanne-Therese Palmaqut
Head of State

We have some idea of the scale of work it takes to pass a UN proposal even when its subject is well-known to everybody; although we consider ourselves reasonable people, we feel certain we should have availed ourselves of the Rep. of Komokom's culinary equipment by now.


Thanks folks!

Let's just say there has been more than one time when I've rolled my eyes, taken a deep breath, and thought the very same thing. ;)

10kMichael

Congratulations to Jamalya and Mikitivity on the passage of an excellent and thoroughly researched resolution.