NationStates Jolt Archive

A few facts about the voting on the last resolution:

1) 45% of U.N. member nations (38'496 as of March 27, 2004) voted
in the last resolution
2) 53% of U.N. member nations who voted, voted FOR
3) 47% of U.N. member nations who voted, voted AGAINST
4) 24% of U.N. member nations voted FOR
5) 21% of U.N. member nations voted AGAINST

The first item shows that a minority is dictating laws for the majority. Now why 55% of the U.N. member nations aren't voting is a valid question and I'm sure they have their reasons, but the 45%, for all we know, could be corrupt nations with nothing but cruel intent. I am not condemning past resolutions, in fact, most resolutions are brought fourth with good intent for civilization and do pass with an overwhelming majority (as shown in items two and three). The point is that while these resolutions pass with a majority, it is not a true majority (as shown in items four and five). This brings about another issue of debate of Voting Majorities, but not the issue at hand. The main concern for the citizens of Bytek is that should a resolution ever arise that is perhaps unfair to smaller, less politicaly powerful nations, that they should have a right to challenge any U.N. resolution, no matter how much of a majority feels it just. Now this is not to say that one nation can challenge any resolution at random, there must be a popular support behind the call for a referendum. An overwhelming outcry from many nations to take any resolution off the books. All we are asking for is that this right be permenantly made available for all nations. All questions, comments and criticisms are welcome.

Noble cause, but one which is not going to be added to the mechanics of NS. NS2's a different matter.

Noble cause, but one which is not going to be added to the mechanics of NS. NS2's a different matter.

We are not asking to change the mechanics of the game. Though we do realize that if such a situation were to arise that such a change would need to be made. All the citizens of Bytek and the regions of Yenartek are asking for is that this resolution be "on the books". This power should be granted to us and the International Community as a whole. All we ask for is this to be "on the books". That is all. (Appreciate the reply and the FYI on NS2, which, if such resolutions could be allowed to alter gameplay, well, then, sweeet. This part in parentheses is unofficial. :P )

The problem with putting something "on the books" is that other players actually expect it to have a real effect. People constantly get up in arms about "Resolution 245A: Proper Grammar" which, while it might be well-intentioned now (it was very well-intentioned at the time it passed) is effectively meaningless. A few of the other early game-mechanics-which-weren't-zapped-because-nobody-went-in-for-it proposals get the same kind of attention.
Putting a resolution such as yours into the list of passed proposals will result - every so often - in people wondering very loudly and repetitively why they can't challenge certain resolutions, where the "challenge resolution" button is, and so on. Upon being told that there's no real effect in mechanistic terms from this resolution, we'll be faced with even more ravings that "the UN is meaningless" (which may or may not be the lesser of two evils).

But on the bright side the number of frying-panings would be increased. :wink:

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The problem with putting something "on the books" is that other players actually expect it to have a real effect. People constantly get up in arms about "Resolution 245A: Proper Grammar" which, while it might be well-intentioned now (it was very well-intentioned at the time it passed) is effectively meaningless. A few of the other early game-mechanics-which-weren't-zapped-because-nobody-went-in-for-it proposals get the same kind of attention.
Putting a resolution such as yours into the list of passed proposals will result - every so often - in people wondering very loudly and repetitively why they can't challenge certain resolutions, where the "challenge resolution" button is, and so on. Upon being told that there's no real effect in mechanistic terms from this resolution, we'll be faced with even more ravings that "the UN is meaningless" (which may or may not be the lesser of two evils).



I think these are all the resolutions that don't count. Pleaase correct me if i'm wrong Enodia.

In order of which they were passed


Expedition of Resolution Votes

UN taxation ban

Proposal limits

Search Function

Secretary General

Resolution 245A Proper Grammar

Reduction of Needed Approvals

Resolution Restrictions

Some of these features were actually added

The problem with putting something "on the books" is that other players actually expect it to have a real effect. People constantly get up in arms about "Resolution 245A: Proper Grammar" which, while it might be well-intentioned now (it was very well-intentioned at the time it passed) is effectively meaningless. A few of the other early game-mechanics-which-weren't-zapped-because-nobody-went-in-for-it proposals get the same kind of attention.
Putting a resolution such as yours into the list of passed proposals will result - every so often - in people wondering very loudly and repetitively why they can't challenge certain resolutions, where the "challenge resolution" button is, and so on. Upon being told that there's no real effect in mechanistic terms from this resolution, we'll be faced with even more ravings that "the UN is meaningless" (which may or may not be the lesser of two evils).

Would this still be the case if, as would be written in the resolution, such action of a referendum could be taken only by an overwhelmingly large majority of support from other nations. Thousands upon thousands would need to petition in order to pull a resolution off the books. Just having one person complaining about a resolution (which happens a lot I'm sure) is not enough to nethier justify the use of a referendum nor to call for a major change in the programming of the game itself. Your views on people asking "Where is the button?" is valid, but this could be circumvented by specifcally declaring in the resolution that if a nation where to challenge a resolution by succesfully using a referendum, it would need to show in writting, or more likely through a post, popular support for such action to be taken. A thouroughly signed petition from thousands of nations. Then and only then would you be running into issues with interfering with the game itself. More than likely such support could never be gathered against such laws that have passed through the U.N.; however, wouldn't it be fair, that if there ever was such an outcry to challenge a U.N. resolution and it was shown to have popular support behind it that such action could be taken. Thusly, such a resolution being "on the books" would allow for such actions to be taken. As of right now, such measures can be taken within the forums, but that is only in regards to other gameing issues and some possible resolutions, such as this one, can be debated. This resolution, however, specifically deals with the U.N. and the U.N. resolutions alone. Again, all we are asking is that this natural right be granted to us by the U.N. and should such a situation arise that we would be allowed to challenge the U.N. authority. This resolution is very complicated in its nature, tiptoeing as to not interfere with the games programming, but it is possible. Help in writing such a complicated resolution is needed and gratefully wanted. With what I have argued, is such a resolution still possible, still practicle?