NationStates Jolt Archive

I see so many useless resolutions in this game being passed by the UN. Water ballast resolution? That was the last one that passed. It made no sence. How does it affect the game? We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up. All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum. So I fail to see why people will worry so much about, or argue fierceky over something useless like a Water Ballast resolution. Frankly I can't wait for a different version to come out. I remember playing this game before a year ago and it hasnt changed at all.

I honestly do not understand how to give an answer for this. You have such an incredibly different viewpoint to many of those who are involved in this game, especially those who take part in the UN debates.

I see so many useless resolutions in this game being passed by the UN. Water ballast resolution? That was the last one that passed. It made no sence. How does it affect the game? We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up. All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum. So I fail to see why people will worry so much about, or argue fierceky over something useless like a Water Ballast resolution. Frankly I can't wait for a different version to come out. I remember playing this game before a year ago and it hasnt changed at all.

Hang on, so why did you come back??? I mean it sounds as if you have absolutely no interest, and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't be here because you don't grasp the fundamental concepts?

Incidentally, if you want to make more sense, you'd do well to learn how to spell.

We were confused about this ourselves not so long ago. So we'd like to introduce to you a lovely game called Let's Pretend...

[sigh] Why are One-Worlders so insecure that they immediately go into attack mode... when their precious UN is questioned? Such attitudes do not bode well for a pay NS.

If you don't like the in-game UN, don't get involved. Simple as that.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

TG, your response indicates that the One-Worlders do not want others playing in the UN... its a private party. Why is it a crime to ask questions or rise concerns? As a mod, I would think that you would welcome such feed-back.

[sigh] Why are One-Worlders so insecure that they immediately go into attack mode... when their precious UN is questioned? Such attitudes do not bode well for a pay NS.

Who are you referring to? I certainly do not consider myself a one-worlder....

TG, your response indicates that the One-Worlders do not want others playing in the UN... its a private party. Why is it a crime to ask questions or rise concerns? As a mod, I would think that you would welcome such feed-back.

It is a two way street. Nobody said it is a crime to bitch and complain, because frankly if that was the case all of us would be guilty at some point.

But the Cows' questions really weren't constructive. Why should a mod or anybody else waste his or her time for the umpteenth time on a question from somebody who really isn't asking a question but just bitching in order to be heard.

Now as for your other quote:


Why are One-Worlders so insecure that they immediately go into attack mode... when their precious UN is questioned?

You can see the irony in your own statement right? Because by pointing out that people are so "insecure" that they go on the attack, you'd done the exact same thing. There is nothing constructive in your statement. It was condescending and meant as an attack itself.

Personally, representatives like Hirota, Rehochipe, Tactical Grace, and Enn are among the few that I geniunely look forward to exchanging posts and ideas with everyday. Maybe you have a low opinion of them, but I don't.

10kMichael

I see so many useless resolutions in this game being passed by the UN. Water ballast resolution? That was the last one that passed. It made no sence. How does it affect the game? We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up. All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum. So I fail to see why people will worry so much about, or argue fierceky over something useless like a Water Ballast resolution. Frankly I can't wait for a different version to come out. I remember playing this game before a year ago and it hasnt changed at all.


Cows, if you don't like the game, log off and don't play again. It's as simple as that. Leave it to those people who genuinely enjoy the game for what it is.

I see so many useless resolutions in this game being passed by the UN. Water ballast resolution? That was the last one that passed. It made no sence. How does it affect the game? We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up. All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum. So I fail to see why people will worry so much about, or argue fierceky over something useless like a Water Ballast resolution. Frankly I can't wait for a different version to come out. I remember playing this game before a year ago and it hasnt changed at all.


Cows, if you don't like the game, log off and don't play again. It's as simple as that. Leave it to those people who genuinely enjoy the game for what it is.

For a group of people who are ready to break out the IGNORE cannon at the slightest whisper of role-playing war, you seem to be awfully intent on reacting to every other form of attack there is. No matter what words we throw out, these people are still going to see it there way, and, unlike the debates in this forum, you can't bring up a fact or a statistic to make yourself right. The fact that we all see the game differently is enough to prove that.

Why not, in the future, let these people complain to only themselves? As many of you have pointed out, they complain or threaten only to get a reaction. When it ceases to bring about the effects they desire, they'll stop doing it. I know I'm guilty of this same foul, but at this point I'm deciding to stay out of the "UN Suxx!!!" threads.

Because really, don't we have better things to do?

Why not, in the future, let these people complain to only themselves?

Because really, don't we have better things to do?

I'll join your boycott of "UN Suxx" threads, as long as they are based in opinion.

But should a real discussion (i.e. something more substantive than, "Your momma" arguments) pop up, I think we all should feel free to continue to exchange ideas. I certainly no longer feel any need to reply to the next 100 posts about how much ballast water sucks, because frankly, I've posted dozens of real-world credible links explaining why it is important. If somebody is too lazy to read an old thread, they aren't gonna listen to a new thread pointing out real world info either.

10kMichael

:!: People need to STOP proposing resolutions such as civil rights or other things that change the government style. Proposing "universal freedom of speech" ruins the entire concept of the game because it makes all dictatorships obsolete. Things such as "ballast waters" is international becuz it ocurrs in international waters and doesn't contradict someones' government choice :!:

Sophista, an outstanding post... I commend you. You hit the nail on the head... people either like or dislike the UN for a wide variety of reasons. Think how boring the game would be if everyone was in agreement. This is suppose to be a political game... different viewpoints are essential for the game to have interest and be fun.

I seem to remember a mod saying that there are currently 100,000+ registered players... at this time. There are about 30,000+ UN members. Has anyone ever stopped to think why the majority of players... avoid it?

I would be willing to bet that most people just want to have fun, but what fun is there in be attacked... no matter which "side" you favor. If civility was enforced on all players... we would have a much better time. The real problem... is the extremists on both sides of the issue.

Sophista, an outstanding post... I commend you. You hit the nail on the head... people either like or dislike the UN for a wide variety of reasons. Think how boring the game would be if everyone was in agreement. This is suppose to be a political game... different viewpoints are essential for the game to have interest and be fun.

I seem to remember a mod saying that there are currently 100,000+ registered players... at this time. There are about 30,000+ UN members. Has anyone ever stopped to think why the majority of players... avoid it?

I would be willing to bet that most people just want to have fun, but what fun is there in be attacked... no matter which "side" you favor. If civility was enforced on all players... we would have a much better time. The real problem... is the extremists on both sides of the issue.

:!: People need to STOP proposing resolutions such as civil rights or other things that change the government style. Proposing "universal freedom of speech" ruins the entire concept of the game because it makes all dictatorships obsolete. Things such as "ballast waters" is international becuz it ocurrs in international waters and doesn't contradict someones' government choice :!:

Although I very much agree with you, one can hardly blame democracies for trying, can you?

We've adopted the position that all one can hope for is to tone down to some degree the vim and vigor of most of these types of proposals, in order to make them more acceptable to minority governments.

Compromise. We don't see enough compromises being made by either camp.

I seem to remember a mod saying that there are currently 100,000+ registered players... at this time. There are about 30,000+ UN members. Has anyone ever stopped to think why the majority of players... avoid it?


I'd be more inclined to think that debating issues for fun just doesn't appeal to most NS players, the way RPing wars doesn't appeal to me.

I had no time to voice my full objections before, so here is a lengthy rebuttal.

The fact is that the in-game UN is a remarkably democratic institution. Allow me to present my arguments:

- Membership is open to everyone.
- UN Delegate status is relatively easy to obtain.
- Threshold on submitting Proposals is very low.
- Power is widely distributed: enormous number of Members and relatively large number of Delegates, who depend on Member endorsements for their status.
- Regions roughly similar in size, with no voting block in overall control; even the Pacifics do not control the UN, as they would have to vote in unison in order to do so, and even then they would have no practical influence on what becomes a Resolution.
- There are relatively few rules on what is eligible to be a Proposal.

I am sure that there are many similar points which could be made. The in-game UN is not some government we elect for a fixed term, which then has a mandate to do whatever the hell it likes, it is an ongoing series of votes in which every game player is able to participate equally, should they choose to make the effort.

And now we come to one of my pet hates, the UN n00bs who complain about it not representing their interests. As I see it, there are probably two different mechanisms at work here:

- They have not made the effort to vote, submit and argue for their own legislation, or give constructive feedback on that of others.
- They may not represent the democratic majority of players.

Now, my advice is this. If you are unhappy with the state of affairs in the in-game UN, you could use the voting powers on offer to try to introduce changes which you feel are necessary, thus joining the rest of us who vote regularly and in doing so, constantly shape the final outcome. Or you can stop complaining and revoke your membership. In some ways this would be a shame, as it seems that half the players have no nation in the UN, and there are many other silent voices out there. But the same choice is open to everyone - if you don't like the UN, the only way you can influence it is by taking part, and if you don't feel like doing that, leave it. I know that I am happy with my participation.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Thank you for your thoughtful point of view, TG.

For various reasons I've had little time or energy for the game this month. When I checked in this week, I discovered htere were no current resolutions to be considered, and looked through PAGES of, well, lame proposals to see if there was something coming up.

Gave up and came to the forum for leads, and saw this thread title about, well, lame propsals. Read through, debating with myself about whether I wanted to add to the rant, quit the UN, or just quit the dang game.

Then I read TG's remarks. Thank you for reminding me of the wee bit of this I do like.

(Of course, then it took 6 trys to get the forum to give me the "add a post" page, and I remember the OTHER reason I don't have time for this... :D )

I seem to remember a mod saying that there are currently 100,000+ registered players... at this time. There are about 30,000+ UN members. Has anyone ever stopped to think why the majority of players... avoid it?


I'd be more inclined to think that debating issues for fun just doesn't appeal to most NS players, the way RPing wars doesn't appeal to me.

There are other reasons as well. Many of those 30,000+ UN members (is that a correct number? It actually seems highish) also have multiple nations, and only one can be a UN member. I've heard there are a few game maniacs who have dozens, even hundreds of nations (?!?), so there may be a lot of non-UN nations for reasons other than lack of interest.

It does seem as though those who like to RP don't care for UN debates and vice versa, from what I've seen. It's true for me as well. I guess people are just inclined to be either warriors or diplomats, even in Let's Pretend.

I personally would be more interested and involved, and giving my regional delegate more nudging to support/reject proposals if:

a) there was a better way to scan the proposal base,

b) the process of clearing out poorly written proposals unlikely to get support was more expedited somehow, just so the current list on the table was shorter,

c) the forum was more accessable and responsive (and less loaded with duplicate posts! -- I just killed one of mine, but you can't if someone else replies quickly).

And now we come to one of my pet hates, the UN n00bs who complain about it not representing their interests. As I see it, there are probably two different mechanisms at work here:

- They have not made the effort to vote, submit and argue for their own legislation, or give constructive feedback on that of others.

Well said.

I think this is very likely the case, as by in large people quickly realize that there is some truth to the old saying, "You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar."

If the nations that cry about things would actually lend constructive advise just once, more of us would probably value their input. As it is ... vinegar just ain't as sweet as honey.

10kMichael

People need to STOP proposing resolutions such as civil rights or other things that change the government style. Proposing "universal freedom of speech" ruins the entire concept of the game because it makes all dictatorships obsolete. Things such as "ballast waters" is international becuz it ocurrs in international waters and doesn't contradict someones' government choice :!:

1) Ummm, no, Universal Freedom of Speech, going by those words 3(Primary) words, would not make dictatorships obsolete, as it would result simply in every-one having the right to free speech, Not the right to run the country, after all, no ones gotten virtual democracy down-pat that far yet... :wink: , anyway, this would how-ever not effect the dictator, that is, provided he's a"nice" dictator, other-wise he might hear things he does not like.

And for him in that case, its welcome to reality time...

2) Is a "becuz" like a feathered serpent? :wink:

I had no time to voice my full objections before, so here is a lengthy rebuttal.

The fact is that the in-game UN is a remarkably democratic institution. Allow me to present my arguments:

- Membership is open to everyone.
- UN Delegate status is relatively easy to obtain.
- Threshold on submitting Proposals is very low.
- Power is widely distributed: enormous number of Members and relatively large number of Delegates, who depend on Member endorsements for their status.
- Regions roughly similar in size, with no voting block in overall control; even the Pacifics do not control the UN, as they would have to vote in unison in order to do so, and even then they would have no practical influence on what becomes a Resolution.
- There are relatively few rules on what is eligible to be a Proposal.

I am sure that there are many similar points which could be made. The in-game UN is not some government we elect for a fixed term, which then has a mandate to do whatever the hell it likes, it is an ongoing series of votes in which every game player is able to participate equally, should they choose to make the effort.

And now we come to one of my pet hates, the UN n00bs who complain about it not representing their interests. As I see it, there are probably two different mechanisms at work here:

- They have not made the effort to vote, submit and argue for their own legislation, or give constructive feedback on that of others.
- They may not represent the democratic majority of players.

Now, my advice is this. If you are unhappy with the state of affairs in the in-game UN, you could use the voting powers on offer to try to introduce changes which you feel are necessary, thus joining the rest of us who vote regularly and in doing so, constantly shape the final outcome. Or you can stop complaining and revoke your membership. In some ways this would be a shame, as it seems that half the players have no nation in the UN, and there are many other silent voices out there. But the same choice is open to everyone - if you don't like the UN, the only way you can influence it is by taking part, and if you don't feel like doing that, leave it. I know that I am happy with my participation.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation

* Sound of mighty cheering of the support.

I'd be more inclined to think that debating issues for fun just doesn't appeal to most NS players, the way RPing wars doesn't appeal to me.

And I would agree with you.

TG, your response indicates that the One-Worlders do not want others playing in the UN... its a private party. Why is it a crime to ask questions or rise concerns? As a mod, I would think that you would welcome such feed-back.

1) One worlders... o=-kay. There we go again, some country went and re-ran the X-Files again... (Smack of hand against fore-head) :wink:

2) Private Party, no, but those who gate crash this public party should expect security to "remove" them.

3) Its no crime, but their is a fine line between question and flame against authority. Did I mention security, and removing (Glares not at Laio, but at any-one who would dare mess with this cool "thang" which is the N.S.U.N.) :wink:

4) We all welcome feed back... "feed-back" that which is unlike useless bitching.

If you don't like the in-game UN, don't get involved. Simple as that.

Danger TC, Danger TC, Sounding like Enodia alert... :)

I see so many useless resolutions in this game being passed by the UN. Water ballast resolution? That was the last one that passed. It made no sence. How does it affect the game? We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up. All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum. So I fail to see why people will worry so much about, or argue fierceky over something useless like a Water Ballast resolution. Frankly I can't wait for a different version to come out. I remember playing this game before a year ago and it hasnt changed at all.

1) I see so many useles resolutions which do not pass. Have some trust, your worry there is the lesser of the two evils I think my my experiance...

2) "We dont build cities, transportation, or our military up." - Welcome to the idea of "Lets Pretend" I think I heard some one here say, well, see what I mean "Heard some one say, txt? Get it? Never-mind.

3) "All we can do in this game is click on a bunch of issues and see what happens as a result and then talk in the forum."

Ping! Welcome to the microcosm of democracy which is the game of Nation States.

4) We do not argue, well, some of us try :wink: to debate, but any-way, my point is we do it because we care how things are done, its ore a form of being able to express political ideas in a safe place where one can feel free from the strain of proximity or identity. They need this in China...

5) I'm glad your waiting for the pay version, I am a student, and such luxury's as credit card accounts for using on-line are beyond my humble means usually, and I'll trust online banking as far as I can through it...

6) Well welcome back, you may now notice its not the game that changes, but interpretations, ideas, ideals, opinions, statistics, politics, people...

Eh... thats all for now...

- The Rep of Komokom.

(Of course, then it took 6 trys to get the forum to give me the "add a post" page, and I remember the OTHER reason I don't have time for this... )

I tend to save all my posting till the hours between 11:00PM CST and 6:00AM CST. No lag, no double posts, and no one saying the same thing I'm saying at the same time I'm saying it.

But, that aside, I agree with the arguments being raised about the nature of the United Nations. I think, however, that the fundamental problem lies within people's expectations. For most of the players that come into these forums, its as simple as "The UN doesn't agree with me, it sucks and is undemocratic." No matter how many valid arguments are raised that prove the almost dangerously democratic nature of the UN, people won't listen. Its the same reason we hear so many people say "hurts my economy, no dice" despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

To further complicate the problem, the forums operate on a "trial by fire" basis, where you're either laughed out of existance for your first post or somehow earn the good graces of those elite few and get taken under a wing. Sadly, this alienates a great deal of the membership, focusing the power in the hands of the disenfranchised masses as opposed to the forum regulars (which would be a much better idea). Honestly, from an outsiders point of view, these threads can be pretty intimidating. And what better way to rail against something you don't understand then by throwing a tantrum?

I seem to have digressed away from what I originally wanted to talk about, but I'm sure there's a bit of relevancy hiding in their somewhere. Who knows, maybe my frenetic rambling will trigger more serious discussion?

M. Aaron Hammonds
NationStater Extraordinaire

Sophista makes a good point with the trial by fire point, yet I am not inclined to whole-heartedly agree with them on it. While in some respects it can result in a rather large quantity of nations faling silent, or falling out of U.N. membership, you must remember that while some what harsh, it is a similar emulation of survival of the fit-est.

And the "taking under the wing support" of that supposed chosen few is not always bad, it can create some rather intelligent posters, my personal example is Enn, while I hardly can say I took them under wing, I feel that vocal support from a "regular" can be crucial to motivating a good proposal writer.

Least, I think I am a "regular" ... actually, I hope I am, almost sounds grand and refined...

In conclusion, such a tactic in this case rather focuses "vocal" power in the hands of the restrained and sensible. And the regulars, who usually know what they are talking about.

Still, you've made a relevant point, no worries there... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well, I just decided to come here, post what I thought, but do it in a non-offensive manner. Since then, I've been regularly on. As a result of my taking part in UN discussion, I've also moved to a region which is more UN oriented. So thanks, Komokom.

To further complicate the problem, the forums operate on a "trial by fire" basis, where you're either laughed out of existance for your first post or somehow earn the good graces of those elite few and get taken under a wing.

[OOC]Frankly, I'm not sure if I'm one of these elite few or not. But I do know that when starting on these forums I managed not to get "laughed out of existence" by doing what any polite and sensible person does when walking into a new and unfamiliar environment - take it easy, watch proceedings for a little while to find out how things work, take the time to learn the rules and don't jump in with something really dumb or offensive as your first post.

It's not as if these guidelines are unique to Nation States - they're true of every internet discussion forum I've ever used, and I hear rumours that they apply to something called the "real world" as well. It's not as if the forum regulars crush n00bs out of existence for posting worthwhile opinions - it's (almost) always something fairly obvious that's covered in one or other of the FAQs/stickies/whatever.

Speaking from recent personal experience, I can say that these forums are a bit intimidating. It has well-established regulars (yes, including you, Komokom ;) ) who have a firm grasp of the kind of proposal they will (or will not) back. Not to mention that most of the regulars have a firm grasp of "legalese" and a head for passionate debate. I admit I was worried as to whether or not I could verbally (textually?) compete here.

Regarding Komokom's comment regarding "motivating a good proposal writer...": I believe the statement is absolutely true... but I also think that, regardless of how good the proposal is, getting people behind it often requires the support (or even constructive criticism) of a "regular." However, I'll qualify that by saying that writing a good first draft of a proposal (and not submitting it immediately ;) ) will get you in the good graces of many "regulars."

Anyway, back to the point: Yes, the UN Forum is "trial by fire," but frankly the flames aren't that hot (haha, extended metaphor and a pun at the same time :?). Seriously though, I wouldn't have it any other way... which could be (and probably will be) attributed to the fact that I'm more-or-less finished with my particular trial. ;)

I never meant to make a distinction among this group of who is and who isn't a regular. Most anyone who's here on a regular basis, contributes, and laughs at my jokes passes my test. Yes, Komokom, you're in that category, as are Enn and East Hackney and a score of others. It wouldn't do me much good to name them all, after all, this is my opinion, and what the hell do I know?

Anyway, don't think for a second that I don't agree with concentrating the vocal power in the hands of a select few. Better to have a small number of intelligent voices than a sea of moronic ones. However, I still say that accessibility to the ranks of that select few is limited. Its important that we allow nations like Enn to come in without suffering the flaming wrath we're all capable of dealing out.

It seems the most important thing is how we (regulars) react to the attempts of them (newbies) to contribute. The ones who read the rules are safe, because we're usually forgiving with people who don't act like douchebags. But, as we all know, that leaves a pretty giant sea of douchebags out there, some of which might have one or two good ideas floating up in that ocean of mostly emptiness.

Yes, survival of the fittest works, especially for me because I'm one of those elitist types who would just as soon strip people who don't post of their voting rights, and make restoration of said rights conditional on the approval of a panel of regular posters, to ensure quality and intelligence. But at what level are we keeping the leaves out of the gene pool and at what level are we making sure its only filled with Perrier?

Eurgh. Sophista, never use the word Perrier around an ex-WMNK member. Please!

I have absolutley no idea the significance of that acronym, but I guess I'll play nice.

::scribbles it out. replaces it with "generic yet pretentious bottled watter":::

Perrier... must try it, I've not been happy with brandy lately... vodka and orange juice seems my preferance now, oh, that and can any-one recommend Mango Liquer? I've been thinking of picking some up...

Oh, yes, ironicaly enough I came up with a list of people a while back who I considered "regulars" but that I admit is subjective to opinion, oh yeah, that and it only happened to to nothing else happening, read that as violent server lag... :wink:

Oh, yes, cue applause for Sophistra, and Enn, per usual I feel now... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Don't worry, it's just me being an old fuddy-duddy and doing one of those "Back in my day" routines. Perrier was one of the more notorious godmodders around the time that mods were first appointed - so much so that the line "Perrier, you're dead - STAY IN CHARACTER" can probably be found all over the place in old RP threads. The WMNK was, for a brief period, a group of reasonable RPers who enjoyed ourselves by turning godmodding n00bs into glass. I won't go as far as to name names, but three moderators or ex-mods have ties to the group and a few of the really old stagers were very enthusiastic members.
Ah, the good old days.

Oooh. Nostalgia. You know, its just not quite what is used to be.

::sigh::

Oh well, duly noted. I'll be more careful in the future.

You better watch out and obey those UN Rules!! Or not they'll send in the UN troops into your country and kick you out.. Just like what they did in Bosnia. Good job!

OOC again...

This has developed into an unexpectedly interesting thread. I admit that I've been guilty on more than one occasion of reacting to (in my eyes) a foolish or offensive posting in a fairly contemptuous way. I'm coming to regret that now. I certainly got my comeuppance in an exchange with Alex II...

Personally, I still feel relatively new to the UN scene. I arrived at a time when the likes of Frisbeeteria (where he been?) were pushing for more technically correct proposals and a better understanding of the mechanics of the UN. Numerous debates (and bickering sessions) later, many of us appear to be very irritable when we witness a new nation that doesn't appear to have grasped these requirements. It's understandable but I think some more venomous responses have been born of frustration and, with hindsight, were ill-advised. Even the Strangers' Bar was triggered by our contempt (though expressed in a form that I found highly amusing - remember the circus and whisky sessions?).

I think the UN has improved because of our efforts. However, those of us who have participated in this period should acknowledge that we need to treat new posters with more respect and encouragement. That doesn't mean we should shirk our duty to slap down any repeat offenders or outrageous bigots; I look to Berkylvania's contributions as perfect illustrations of how you can combine humour and reason to make your point and put an idiot in their place.

I'm coming to regret that now. I certainly got my comeuppance in an exchange with Alex II...
Ah, Alex II. How we miss him, wherever he may be.

I don't have much of a problem with the way that the UN old hands respond to n00bs. Yes, some new posters have come in for pretty harsh treatment but, generally, they're asking for it. Though I admire any forum veteran who can exercise politeness and restraint in the face of flagrant idiocy, it's a bit much to expect tolerance in the face of the 153rd proposal that week to ban married gays from having Christian abortions.

I don't think the assembled UN regulars have ever delivered a really unjust slapdown to a n00b purely on the basis that they're new (if there are any nations out there who feel different, I'd like to hear from them). As members such as Enn and Rehochipe have shown, it's entirely possible to come straight onto these boards and start flinging around interesting, provocative, controversial and funny opinions and be treated with respect from the start.
But you have to follow the same basic rules as any other internet forum, which are so common now that they're pretty much part of basic netiquette. The nations that get firmly slapped down/walloped with a frying pan/ignored in favour of a boozy circus are generally those ones who haven't bothered to do that.

Hmm, netiquette. I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should be aware of this. I for one had never participated in net-based gaming prior to finding NS. Hell, I don't even own a computer - I just use the net when I'm at work. Trust me, you'd spend all day in the NS forums as well if you had my job...

Trust me, you'd spend all day in the NS forums

And what makes you think I don't?;)

Ah, but I do no work because I'm lazy and hate my job. I suspect you do no work because you're doing a mickey mouse job or summat.

*smirk*

Same end result, I guess.

Ho! you twa, If ye're wee, an' blue, an ye can scoot reeaally fas', ye cannae git hit wi' the fryin' pan tho' :P

Watch it Mac Feigle, yee may be wee, yee ay be blue, and yee may scoot really fast, but ah never told'yeeat me mighty pocket I.G.N.O.R.E. (Strangers Bar Possible Plot Device Tm) cannon did, did aye? So you be watching the taking of the frying-pan's name in vain, won't yee? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.