NationStates Jolt Archive

The recently passed resolution "Universal Freedom of Choice" basically supports anarchy within all UN member nations. As many of us enjoy knowing that we have full control of our citizens (any dictators in da house? :twisted: ), I have proposed "Common Political Sense", which simply appeals "Universal Freedom of Choice" and acknowledges our freedom to rule as we see fit. Please provide your support by visiting this page:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/65580/page=UN_proposal/start=40

Scrolling to the near bottom and add your approval before March 31. We don't have much time! At the vary least, read my proposal (IT'S SHORT!)

Thank you.

Bye bye, Somethingorotherone!

I'm sensing a certain group within these forums who highly enjoy seeing certain personages being ejected from the UN.

I ask them to refrain from such joyful enthusasium to those wishing to express their point of views or proposals with a more dignified answer.

(OCC: If the mod in question who ejected me from the UN because of my proposal had just sent me a warning, closed my thread, and deleted my proposal, I may have accepted. I might not have liked it, still don't, but I would have accepted it. But I was given no warning, and consider it as the same as someone walking into a room and punching me in the face with no warning. I did post that if it wouldn't be accepted as a mechanic of the game, THAT IT BE ACCEPTED AS A PORTION OF THE ROLEPLAY)

Enn, Kokomon, and the other triplets who wish to laugh with glee everytime someone gets ejected from the UN, some people would like to promote their proposals without a laugh in the face and a straight ejection from the UN. And that if you have something better to add to someone's proposal than a HAHA your going to get it arse attitude, I suggest you do so in a more civilized manner by arueing for or against the proposal.

The free verse poetry was a bad example to boot, to someone who was giving a serious proposal. I did not need crap thrown into my face for my ejection, and neither does anybody else. Considering three or four of you did just that and still call yourself dignified I find laughable myself.

And to come to think of it, any one that has given garbage to any person in these forums because of an ejection for a proposal they expressly believed in whole heartedly should check their attitude right at the door. I believed in my proposal, the person above who wrote the new proposal shouldn't have to receive garbage from loud mouthed braggarts with stuck up noses and a belief in their own superiority god complexes.

I'm just glad that anybody that did agree and endorsed my proposal wasn't ejected along with myself, so at least I know the Mods only punish the messenger and none of the endorsers. And there was a number of people who were endorsing it. I didn't ask or tell the operator of the system that he would have to go in and change code in the game, and I never told him/her to. I offered a proposal in which I thought would be accepted as part of the roleplay. Little did I fricken know, and don't be shoving the rules about, I read the thing and was within the limits.

However the Mod disagreed. I'll live with it for now, but I will be pushing the limits to deter outright democracy forced down everyones throats by UN resolutions a lot.

I do not enjoy people being ejected from the UN, and take affront from your suggestion that I do.

But plainly and simply, it is there in the thread at the top of this forum: "Before you make a proposal". Repeals are not allowed. It has been openly stated enough times. I personally cannot understand why people do not read the stickies.

That also goes for people who do not read the FAQ. Everything is stated nice and clear, and if you have a problem or unsure about something, then ask. Surely that isn't too hard to work out?

Then maybe you should have more patience with people instead of, "Go read the FAQ", "It's in the FAQ", "Isn't this in the FAQ?", "oooo ejection." In which you have stated on more than one time.

I think you get a hoot out of people getting ejected from the UN, because you believe it shows you more intelligent than the rest of us maybe? Perhaps you are the only person able to read and the rest of us are illiterate?

I am not one to sit on fences, and I've taken a great dislike to you personally for your pompous attitude to the newer members of the UN and to the newer people in general. I will attack or endorse a persons politics and again with their proposals. I do seriously try to refrain from attacking people directly. But your an exception to the rule with the way you treat in your disrespect overall to any one person because of what they propose.

And I've noticed that about you. You don't attack a persons proposal for what it is. You just attack the persons intelligence for proposing it in the first place. You go back and read some of your own posts where you question the IQ or intelligence of the people argueing for their propositional measures.

:sits simmering in silence. After all, we don't need an all-out flamewar in the middle of the UN:

I'm not sure why my post has become the feild of such an argument, but I am relatively new to this game and tonight is the first time I have visited the forum. I did now see the post Enn refered to and I still cannot find anything in the FAQ that forbids appeals. As for not asking, I had no indication that I SHOULD ask. All I knew was that the members of my region were outraged by a resolution and when I read it it made no sense. So I wrote a counter proposal. Such things happen all the time in the real world and are completely acceptable in Robert's Rules of Order. I don't understand why this subject is so offensive!

I'm sorry, Somethingorotherone, for my earlier post. I made the mistake of assuming you had been around longer than you had (I missed the join date under your name).

Unfortunatly for all of us (or fortunatly depending on your point of view), the UN does not work according to real-world politics. So, that means there are no appeals, no repeals, and no changes to previous resolutions. It's just the way this whole thing works.

Terran Assemblage, probably the main reason I have been so blunt is that my grandmother is dying. I'm not acting as I normally do. I hope that you can accept that, and that we will move on from this. Otherwise, I'm just going to avoid raising this conversation again.

Tell the truth I read both the FAQ and the wording about the 'changing of game mechanics' in the UN based semi-FAQ they have going, and think that the mods are getting a little gun happy. It's hard being a Mod, I know. Not enough respect by some, and adoring fans from others.

And if an unbiased non-partisan new person can come to the conclusion that the new resolution doesn't make sense, then maybe it's a larger problem than most had previously suspected.

Of course now it can never be changed...EVER. And I don't know if I want to pay money into an NS2. Buying into a server so you can change the political choice in votes for a resolution? Lol. This sounds more and more political the more I learn about this place.

I'm sensing a certain group within these forums who highly enjoy seeing certain personages being ejected from the UN.

It's been seen so many times. Some recent arrival will try and repeal a resolution, and get kicked out...it is actually funny, because there is plenty of documentation warning nations of what not to do, and it seems 95% of nations fail to read them, or ignore them.

If I didn't laugh, I'd be crying at the futility of it all. These 95% of nations are just like Lemmings. Making the same pointless proposals, the same pointless repeals, and the same disappointing ejections from the UN.

If the mod in question who ejected me from the UN because of my proposal had just sent me a warning, closed my thread, and deleted my proposal, I may have accepted.

You have been warned, and it's all there to be read. If a mod had to warn every time a pointless proposal is posted, they would not have much time to do anything else....

I believed in my proposal, the person above who wrote the new proposal shouldn't have to receive garbage from loud mouthed braggarts with stuck up noses and a belief in their own superiority god complexes.

Or perhaps that should read..."and a belief in their own reading skills?"

Little did I fricken know, and don't be shoving the rules about, I read the thing and was within the limits.

No, seriously. You did not read the rules. THIS (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1708620#1708620) underlines how you cannot repeal. Plus if you've been about for a while you quickly realise what you cannot get away with....

I'll live with it for now, but I will be pushing the limits to deter outright democracy forced down everyones throats by UN resolutions a lot.

Last time I checked, you are not a UN member, thus I'd be very suprised if you actually have any control over what the UN does or does not.

The recently passed resolution "Universal Freedom of Choice" basically supports anarchy within all UN member nations.
Yeah, so that'll explain my move from Scandinavian Liberal Paradise to....a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. Like has been said all this time, this resolution was not going to make Anarchy the status quo. :roll:

ok. so after reading ALL of the replies my posts have generated, I am totally confused and decently worried. Enn, would you mind kindly telling me what is going on and what, if anything, will happen to my account?



On as personal a note as possible since I don't know you, you don't know me, and we are communicating via an online forum, I will pray for your daughter. I haven't experienced a death that close to home and I don't want to even try to imagine how painful it must be for you. May God (or whomever you might pray to) show mercy on you and your family.

Side Note: in case anyone might be wondering, I am a very Christian person and that was NOT sucking up to a mod, but sharing my sympathies with another human being

Bye bye, Somethingorotherone!

That wasn't a very dignified response to a new UN member or a new gamer in question now was it. That's as bad as saying, "HA HA bye bye," and when someone else read it, it sounds like your saying it in perfect glee.

And I'll tell you both once again, in my proposal I used the word APPEAL, APPEAL. It does not state in any mention or form the word REPEAL.

Seriously, go get a dictionary. Seriously, go get a dictionary...

Seriously you sound like my sister on a skipping sarcastic record player. Who is flaming whom?

Whose the one that made the free verse poem about a frying pan, jumping from the pan and into the fire? You want me to bring and quote every single verse that some of you have stated about flaming others? I thought the frying pan incident was mock hung jury enough.

I'd like to point out that I have tried this entire time NOT to be argumentative or offensive in any way. I just want to make sure this argument beween other players doesn't hurt me

Okay...

Repeals and appeals of previous resolutions are simply not allowed. It's a game mechanics problem, and one the mods strictly enforce. Personally, I'm not in favour of this, but I've heared enough arguments over this issue that I've just decided to go with it.

On the subject of your account... I really don't know. It might be a good idea to telegraph Enodia (he's the main UN mod) about this, but I wouldn't bet on it. It is possible that you may be ejected from the UN, but you should stay within the game. If absolute need be, you could begin again, with a new nation.

I don't know what the mods will decide.

Aside from that - it's my grandmother, not my daughter. But in any case I'm sure your prayers will be accepted.

"Komokom
Senator

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:53 am Post subject: GRRR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* What seems to be a vein in The Rep of Komokom's fore-head becomes rather excited.

(Sound of spluttering)

"Right, ENODIA, ENODIA, WHERE THE DEVIL ARE YOU. Word of power my bee-hind, educate this person here to why, to why... Grrr."

- The Rep of Komokom.

Oh but to make things clear,

COMMON RULE : REPEAL OF ANY SORT OR REQUEST TO ALLOW THEM,

=

FRYING-PANNING, BEING SET ALIGHT, BEING STRUCK BY MODERATORS LINES OF DEADLY NATION KILLING CODE, AND MOST COMMONLY FINDING IT HARD TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE U.N. ... AGAIN.

Capeesh? "



....you think you were being funny to someone which at no time attacked anyone else, was makeing a delegate proposal, and was being moderately to very polite? And this is what I got in return? With such other comments as "Ooooo ejection."

I don't see that as helpful.

That wasn't a very dignified response to a new UN member or a new gamer in question now was it. That's as bad as saying, "HA HA bye bye," and when someone else read it, it sounds like your saying it in perfect glee.
I have already apologised for that. After what you have said, I would have thought that you would notice an apology from me, given that you have been avidly reading every one of my posts.
Whose the one that made the free verse poem about a frying pan, jumping from the pan and into the fire? You want me to bring and quote every single verse that some of you have stated about flaming others? I thought the frying pan incident was mock hung jury enough.
I honestly don't know what you are referring to. But frying pans are more Komokom's area. I have the billiard cues :twisted: .

Okay...
Aside from that - it's my grandmother, not my daughter. But in any case I'm sure your prayers will be accepted.

Wow. I must be tired! I have no idea why I so horribly mis-read that!

Tell the truth I read both the FAQ and the wording about the 'changing of game mechanics' in the UN based semi-FAQ they have going, and think that the mods are getting a little gun happy.
The reasoning for strengthening the penalty for proposing the repeal of a proposal was that the number of people doing so was increasing exponentially and the "three strikes and you're out" system didn't seem to be working in this case. Situations which still do mandate a warning - such as putting a proposal in the wrong category or something along those lines - tend to be cases where the warned party politely asks what was wrong with his/her proposal, takes the correction and moves on. Repeal/appeal proposals, on the other hand, tend to be made by people who are blissfully unaware of the rules and who make broad, sweeping statements about the death of democracy when their proposals are deleted. In order to cut down on the number of times democracy dies every week, the decision was taken to eject people for proposing one appeal, rather than three.

I'm aware that the foregoing contains some generalisations, particularly in the categorisation of would-be repealers. However, as a moderator I don't deal with many thousands of individual cases, but rather a series of cases which crop up many thousands of times. This month "Rightwingistan" might be the player to propose that all homosexuals be shot, and he would be duly warned for putting his proposal in the wrong category. Next month it might be "Federated Homophobes" doing the same thing with the same result. Likewise, the reactions of would-be repealers over time tend towards the "death of democracy" type that I have outlined.
"Blissfully unaware of the rules" is the second part of the characterisation and again it is, in the majority of cases, an accurate one. In a more generalised "game mechanics proposal" sense, players are told in black and white not to make such proposals at the proposal submission page. They are also linked, from that self-same page, to my sticky entitled "Before You Make A Proposal", which outlines what the rules are, why the rules exist and what happens if you break the rules. Obviously we can't physically make your browser go there before you make a proposal, but the steps that we do take are viewed as being sufficient warning and recapitulation of the rules.

....you think you were being funny to someone which at no time attacked anyone else, was makeing a delegate proposal, and was being moderately to very polite? And this is what I got in return? With such other comments as "Ooooo ejection."

I don't see that as helpful.
All the help you needed where in the rules and the FAQ. And so was your warning.

I admit we do tend to get annoyed with people who post illegal resolutions and in some cases aggressive but it gets very frustrating when people post these appeals, repeals, and amendments when it clearly states, in several places that you can’t do it.

We might as well have fun with our frustration.

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

The recently passed resolution "Universal Freedom of Choice" basically supports anarchy within all UN member nations. As many of us enjoy knowing that we have full control of our citizens (any dictators in da house? :twisted: ), I have proposed "Common Political Sense", which simply appeals "Universal Freedom of Choice" and acknowledges our freedom to rule as we see fit. Please provide your support by visiting this page:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/65580/page=UN_proposal/start=40

Scrolling to the near bottom and add your approval before March 31. We don't have much time! At the vary least, read my proposal (IT'S SHORT!)

Thank you.
You can not appeal a resolution.

Giordano,
Assistant representative,
The Black New World
(this was a standard response)

I understand now that I cannot propose a repeal! I am sorry! Go ahead and remove the proposal now! I am a newbie and was too foolish not to search out all rules and click all links that might have helped! I'm sorry!

I must admit, Desdemona (and others), that I'd like you all to tone down the sarcasm just a bit - especially when dealing with newer nations. As I've said above, yes it's the same general pattern of activity, so the same response is mandated, but there's no reason other than our natural human instincts to give the mandated response with sarcasm added. I mean, fast food workers must say "Have a nice day" millions of times every day, but I've never been told that with a sarcastic sneer.

Enodia, I have sent you a private telegram.

God I do sound nasty don’t I.

Sorry, I’ll tone it down.

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

It seems to me, that if the mods have the time to look at props that may be attempts to repeal previously passed resolutions, then they must surely also see the resolutions which attempt to put nation issues onto the statute books of international law. It is the proposals that attempt to do this which cause the most concern, and usually the most interference for players. You can't have it both ways mods, if you are going to deal so arbitrarily with one offence, you should treat the other in the same summary fashion!

In defence of Enn, I've found this nation to be generally the most innocuous of the Elitist 'Interlekchewals' group currently trying to be the Thought Police on these forums. By far and away the worst offender weilds his frying pan with all the passion of a deranged fresher, who thinks that he invented original thought. Careful Enn, fascism creeps up unnoticed...

Note: I am the owner of Somethingorotherone, now signed in as my alter-ego Flipajuwousky.

Wow, ok. Things are getting a little out of control here. If people want to wage war against the moderators, go ahead, but don't be my guest! Please start a new thread to do it in. I have asked that the nations in my region read this thread so that they might follow up on it and understand what happened to my proposal. I want them to know the facts of gameplay, not spend their time reading slander!

I ask again, please start a new thread for this line of posts. Contribute to this one only to further clarify what has happened in conjunction with "Common Political Sense."

The Republic of Somethingorotherone has been ejected from the UN and its sister nation, The Holy Empire of Flipajuwousky, has applied to take her place. Although I am unhappy with the result, I consider it just. It means that I will have to re-begin my conquest of my region, and that my prefered nation is now handicapped, but so be it. I made a mistake, several, in fact, and I must accept the consequnces.

I understand now that I cannot propose a repeal! I am sorry! Go ahead and remove the proposal now! I am a newbie and was too foolish not to search out all rules and click all links that might have helped! I'm sorry!

Sorry I posted that before I read your apology in the other thread.

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

that's ok

Three strikes your out, wasn't working?

Then in that case there should be no way to join the game unless new members are first forced to read the FAQ before they are even allowed the option to enter the game. Case in point, a big fat warning sign at the very front page saying, "THOSE WHO ARE NEW, must read the FAQ, OR else." Big red lettering perhaps. Should list the entire FAQ, then like the option of downloading windows upgrades, "I AGREE", and the "I DISAGREE" format should be given. Those that agree enter. Those that don't, can't play.

"You have broken the law on littering by subsection three paragraph six under city ordanance 2412.1b on littering laws, you have been found guilty and will be executed immediately." Gun happy.

Maybe two strikes and your out if three was to much. Warning with a strict reprimand on that a second such occurance would lead to a more serious consequance. The only thing that happened first time round was the serious consequance. And you have how many new people joining per day or week that your doing this to? Which leads to more needless frustration on not only the mods, but some of the newer players in question who don't believe they have a single say in the resolutions that THEY havn't even voted upon, and so they WRITE UP NEW PROPOSALS, allowing them that choice to vote on those past proposals which now affect them.

So as one past delegate put it, it can be seen as a sort of curse, since the UN laws are immutable, even if every single member who did vote for it and the resolution passed, died the very next day or all of them changed their minds with no recourse to change said events. "You made your bed, now sleep in it." Doesn't help much that the bed is full of needles, and that no one wants to sleep on needles.

You all talk about can of worms, ejections, throwing the FAQ's into peoples faces...but unchangeable laws is a very serious issue. That's as much as set dictatorship as any other. The only person I can fault was the original coder who didn't conceive of the notion that laws do change, and many real life United Nations bylaws actually cancel each other out or even contradict one another. And their own lawyers get tangled up in their worded meaning from one contradictory law to another. Puting the wording in of, "in which does not conflict with past UN resolutions" is the most common repeated words in many UN laws, even though new resolutions do conflict with past resolution laws at many points of time.

Unfortunately there are some proposals now which contradict past UN laws in the game. That's the most frustrating aspect of this entire scenario.

And continually slapping people down for the same proposal, IF it is the same proposal over and over, then how many disagree with the current status of this problem? Two? Ten? Fifty? A hundred? More? I made my proposal simple. If it isn't 2/3rds then it's not quite a whole majority. If I was to use that, then there are a number of untouchable laws on the books. There are a couple of issues, which was not a wholly majority. Yes they had slim passable margins, but that left a lot of room open for continuous debate to the wording of the issue at hand.

...yes, I do seem to go on don't I. :(

=^o.o^= Meow. <----That's my thang.

Anyway, I put the whole thing in the technical portion.

However I have just recieved a message, stating nothing at this time can be done about it, and I should leave it at that.

And why I would pay money in NS2 so I can pass a law is beyond me. I can understand if they ask for donations. I can do donations. The whole pay to play isn't in the slightest bit appealing, and those who do the pay for play sites usually want something in return in almost every case.

If it makes you feel better, Terran Assemblage, I won't be moving to NS2 either. :twisted:

DUDE! What is your beef about YOUR issue? This thread started off about MY proposal and, short of a comment here and there, all you've talked about is you! Start your own thread! Complain there! Please refer to my previous comment (as Flipajuwousky) for a more detailed describtion of my reasoning.

I'm sorry. But your issue, mine, and several other peoples actually match. In other words, your in the same pickle as some of the rest of us when we first got here too. I'm only a week old to the game, but i'm not new to politics. I'm finding this all fascinatingly fun, enjoyable, and a real riot at certain times. I usually play the devil's advocate on certain issues. But I do agree with you and your regions assessment of the proposal that was recently passed. It was a highly contraversial issue.

I violated the game's rules as set by the individuals chosen to keep it functioning. I've accepted the situation AND MOVED ON! I suggest you do the same. If you choose not to, that's your affair, but PLEASE start a new thread or go back to an old one! I'm not being unreasonable in this request!

=^o.o^= Meow?

Sorry for re-hijacking this thread (I swear it'll reach Cuba one day if we're not careful), but Terran Assemblage raised a series of issues that need addressing, and here's the first place I've seen the issues set out this way.

Three strikes your out, wasn't working?
That's not quite what I said. The three strike policy works perfectly well where the rule violations are comparatively minor - putting a proposal into the "Human Rights" category when it should be "Furtherment of Democracy" or something along those lines. People who make those mistakes tend to accept the correction with good grace, re-submit the proposal correctly and go on to live, if not greatly productive (in a forum sense), at least blandly inoffensive lives.
People who submit a repeal resolution tend to do so in a much more deliberate manner and, back when they were simply warned not to, would continue doing so - all the while muttering under their breaths about the US Constitution and democratic rights. There are nations out there who have been ejected for proposing, on three separate occasions, the repeal of "Resolution 245A: Proper Grammar". Clearly they did not take as kindly to the warning as those who merely miscategorised a proposal.

Then in that case there should be no way to join the game unless new members are first forced to read the FAQ before they are even allowed the option to enter the game. Case in point, a big fat warning sign at the very front page saying, "THOSE WHO ARE NEW, must read the FAQ, OR else." Big red lettering perhaps. Should list the entire FAQ, then like the option of downloading windows upgrades, "I AGREE", and the "I DISAGREE" format should be given. Those that agree enter. Those that don't, can't play.
As it stands now, there is the Terms of Service to be agreed to. Players are also encouraged to read the FAQ in order to avoid questions of "How Do I Get Started?". The rules about UN proposals are linked to from the proposal-submission screen. Short of physically grabbing your mouse and clicking on the links myself, I'm running low on ways of making you (as an abstract player, not you personally) read the FAQ or the rules.

"You have broken the law on littering by subsection three paragraph six under city ordanance 2412.1b on littering laws, you have been found guilty and will be executed immediately." Gun happy.
False analogy. A "littering" offence is the same general thing as putting your proposal in the wrong category. If someone does that, they're given a warning and the proposal is deleted. If they do it again, same thing. If they do it a third time, we take stronger action. Repeal proposals seek to tamper with the mechanics of the game itself and as such are much more serious offences.

Maybe two strikes and your out if three was to much. Warning with a strict reprimand on that a second such occurance would lead to a more serious consequance. The only thing that happened first time round was the serious consequance. And you have how many new people joining per day or week that your doing this to? Which leads to more needless frustration on not only the mods, but some of the newer players in question who don't believe they have a single say in the resolutions that THEY havn't even voted upon, and so they WRITE UP NEW PROPOSALS, allowing them that choice to vote on those past proposals which now affect them.
If people would actually read the information given them at the outset, we wouldn't need to reprimand or eject anyone from the UN. In fact, if people read and obeyed the rules we'd have a much nicer game all round. It doesn't happen, so we have to take steps to prevent it from happening. You are consistently ignoring the fact that it is only "Repeal this resolution"-style submissions and the most blatantly offensive of proposals (such as "All you faggots must die") that result in a summary ejection from the UN. In every other case, the only action taken at first and second instance is a warning. The warning is stronger at second instance, and at third instance is coupled with UN ejection. I can make that distinction. Can you please try to do so?

So as one past delegate put it, it can be seen as a sort of curse, since the UN laws are immutable, even if every single member who did vote for it and the resolution passed, died the very next day or all of them changed their minds with no recourse to change said events. "You made your bed, now sleep in it." Doesn't help much that the bed is full of needles, and that no one wants to sleep on needles.
Point taken. This might be a silly example, but I'm prepared to stick with it anyway. Have you ever played Monopoly and been in a situation where you wished you had more hotels than you did? In that situation, it would be only natural to say "this game would be more fun if you could convert houses to hotels at whim". Maybe it would. The fact of the matter is that the rules don't allow it, so you've got a choice. Either stick with the rules and grudgingly accept the fact that they don't do everything you want them to, or go against them and risk sanctions by other players.

You all talk about can of worms, ejections, throwing the FAQ's into peoples faces...but unchangeable laws is a very serious issue. That's as much as set dictatorship as any other. The only person I can fault was the original coder who didn't conceive of the notion that laws do change, and many real life United Nations bylaws actually cancel each other out or even contradict one another. And their own lawyers get tangled up in their worded meaning from one contradictory law to another. Puting the wording in of, "in which does not conflict with past UN resolutions" is the most common repeated words in many UN laws, even though new resolutions do conflict with past resolution laws at many points of time.
As I've said before, NationStates was never intended to be as popular as it has become. That's why player-submitted issues are new, that's why the forum sometimes chews you up and spits you out. When Max created this site it was a case of "have some fun, sell some books". It is now something much more spectacular than that. Would it work differently if he were aware of how popular it was going to become? He's on record as saying that it would work vastly differently. Unfortunately, un-repealable resolutions are a holdover from the unanticipated popularity of NS.

Like it or not, that's the bottom line. For the umpteenth time, I'm all for a more realistic UN - with repeals, maybe even a Security Council and resolutions which don't automatically get foisted on the membership. That would be great. Problem is, I moderate in line with the way the game is currently. If the coding changes overnight, I'll change how I'm modding.

the Elitist 'Interlekchewals' group currently trying to be the Thought Police on these forums

Without naming names, please - I have no wish to stoke any flame wars - I'd like Joccia to elaborate on what he thinks is the problem here. I think he's conflating two issues - the first being the treatment handed out to people posting threads in the wrong place, asking questions with obvious answers, submitting resolutions etc etc [call it all n00bish behaviour] and the second being the supposed bias of the UN forums towards a small elite group of liberal nations, all of whom are veterans here and tend not to listen to newcomers.

On the first point - I agree with Enodia, we are being overly harsh on people making innocent mistakes (and I include myself in this). It's easy to forget that what looks like a harmless in-joke to UN forum veterans can look like a callous slapdown to newbies. Could we, possibly, find a couple of polite and forbearing nations who can be appointed to politely direct new posters in the direction of the various FAQs and stickies?

On the second point - a lot of people have been getting worked up over the supposed liberal bias of the UN and its exclusiveness. I think these claims are unfounded. It seems to me that any nation which turns up on these forums with an interesting viewpoint and a willingness to genuinely debate issues will be listened to - there's enough of a political spread between the various UN forum regulars that I think the "liberal bias" claims are just wrong.

The reason that the two points, I think, are being conflated is that so many right-wing nations pop in here purely to post a proposal banning abortion/gay marriage/communism/whatever, aren't prepared to seriously debate the issues and so don't get taken seriously. Or they get slapped down without being taken seriously.

So, Joccia - are these "intellectual elite" the "thought police" because of their taunting of newbies? Or are they the "thought police" because they tend to argue vehemently against proposals which they don't like? If the latter - well, what's wrong with that and how is it different to what every other nation on NS does?

PS: Somethingorotherone, please don't take it personally that people are still posting in this thread. Nobody's attacking you any more - it's simply that the issues have been raised in this thread so this is the convenient place to respond to them.

No Names, No Packdrill.

It's not the humour, not the shooting down of extremists, not the dismissal of obvious n00bs, or even the pillorying of innocents who've lost their way in spite of the very obvious signposts.

I admit in advance that I may be wrong, and may have drawn the wrong conclusions from what I've seen.

What I have seen is a growing fashion of 'put-downs' for anyone who dares to disagree with the 'clique', or who is less able to express themselves in the written word as clearly or grammatically as the intellectual 'elite'.

I have seen instances where a little extra effort is required to interpret the substance of a post, that done, the post becomes valid and shows that a great deal of thought lies behind it.

I have seen these posters intellectually flamed for not having a grasp of grammar, or branded as thicko's by implication.

I guess that many of us have some sort of degree education, and are lucky enough to be able to express ourselves in a variety of ways. This does not make us better than those whose literacy is limited, it merely means we can be more verbose!

I speak because of what I see.

I speak to bring attention to something which may go unnoticed until this site becomes a playground solely for an elite group.

It is not 'Liberal' values that I speak against, it is ears that are shut, and mouths which are gagged.

As you know I've usually got my own wee way of lampooning, but this is too important for them.

Thanks very much for the clarification. I'm glad to say that as far as I can recall none of East Hackney's delegates have done anything of the sort... though we can't speak for our actions while, erm, tired and emotional.

I'd got the wrong end of the stick, obviously - not used to seeing the word "elite" without "liberal" stuck on the front :wink:

Damn, time to leave work. Will post a follow-up when I get home...

What I have seen is a growing fashion of 'put-downs' for anyone who dares to disagree with the 'clique', or who is less able to express themselves in the written word as clearly or grammatically as the intellectual 'elite'.

OK...that's really two issues in one there. "Put-downs for disagreeing with the clique"...hmm. Not sure who's in this clique anyway.
And it can be quite hard to differentiate between shooting down an ill-informed n00b, who's spouting off without having understood the proposal under discussion or acquainted himself with the facts, and dismissing someone out of hand because they disagree. Fine line. I'll TG you on the matter.

As to the spelling/grammar thing...well, this is tricky. See, I don't think you need a university degree in order to spell properly or write clearly and without ambiguity. Now, I must admit that I quite often ignore posts that are badly written - but that's not because I'm dismissing the author's views, purely that I tend to be furtively checking NS at work, I don't have much time to sit and plough through hard-to-understand posts, and I'm not going to devote much of that time to deciphering 500-odd words typed without the benefit of full stops or paragraph breaks.

But, on the other hand, there probably is a little bit too much criticism - maybe even borderline flaming - based on people's bad spelling/grammar. So where do we draw the line?

The two 'cliques' I have identified are those members in long standing who have been here for a longer period of time, vs. some newer members who are still trying to get a feel for the ever changing political climate.

There will be many issues which two opposing sides can come to a head. Even more so, when those two opposing sides believe strongly in their point of view or the view of their regions. What many first take offense to is being told that "you don't know what your talking about", "you didn't read", "you completely misunderstood my point", or comments referring to a persons intelligence is made. That's when things start heating up back and forth.

It only heats up more so, when someone makes a proposal that tells them where they can sleep, where they can eat, who they can be with, which government forms are allowed and which are not. Quite a few i've already read believe the entire due process of democratic government, even though their are governments which are not democratic. For those people working and living in a non-democratic government take great offense to those pushing democracy through as reforundum for all. That was the point of the last resolution just recently past, and why it was such a heated debate. It effectively cut out all other forms of government and established democratic choice to every single member nations citizens. Or that is how it is being received by every person who voted no.

For the people that voted yes, you perceive it as a good thing. But for every single person who voted no, they do not perceive this as a good thing. And having some members of the UN telling others, "Well that's to bad for you," doesn't help the situation, it only inflames it to higher levels.

OK, that's a fair bit to chew on. Where to begin? Hmm.
The one major piece of advice that I would give to any newbie - and this applies to any discussion group anywhere on the internet, not just NS - is that "getting a feel for the climate" is vital. Ideally, that would include reading all the FAQs etc, but at the very least it should involve watching the boards for a couple of days and seeing what works, what doesn't, what people respond to, what's a big no-no and so forth.

This isn't a Nation States-specific rule, it's applicable to anywhere. You wouldn't go into a room full of people you'd never met before and start sounding off about gay marriage, abortion or whatever - at least not if you wanted them to pay much attention to you. Just as the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for forum veterans to slap down n00bs without thinking of the consequences, so the same anonymity makes it easier for n00bs to charge right in without a clear idea of what they're getting into.

And, having been on other internet forums, NS is nowhere near the worst for its treatment of n00bs. Compared to the horrendous flamings some Usenet groups will dish out for politely asking a question that's covered in the FAQ, this UN intellectual clique is pretty mild.

All I can say is that that's how I got established on the UN forums. It wasn't (I think) because I had the "right" liberal views or could spell or whatever. It was because I took a little time to read the FAQs and stickies, plough through a few threads to get an idea of the atmosphere of the place and make a few fairly innocuous posts before launching into anything major. I'm not trying to boast - I'm just pointing out that that's what worked for me and I've seen a few others do it since.

The problem of flaming and debates heating up - well, I think there's blame on both sides there. However - sad but true - the fact is that you can get away with that kind of thing more if you've been around a while and posted enough intelligent stuff to earn respect. Maybe that's unfair, but that's how real life works too - for many of the UN veterans, the first impression that we get of a new nation is them launching into an extremist rant about something controversial, posting an illlegal proposal or something similar. If you met someone in real life for the first time and the first thing they said to you was "I think we should kill all fags," they've probably blown their chance to be your friend right there.

But, having said that, the UN veterans should probably be shouldering the responsibility of rising above the flame wars. I'm not sure what to do about this, though. We're all human and some of us - particularly proposal authors dealing with a flood of telegrams, attacks and whatnot - are under extreme stress.

On the specific subject of the Freedom of Choice resolution - my considered opinion is that it doesn't do a whole lot. It certainly doesn't bring about universal democracy. And its author Tactical Grace, among others, pointed this out repeatedly in all of the half-dozen or so threads devoted to it. It's hard to blame anyone for getting tetchy in that situation.

However, maybe it's unreasonable too to expect n00bs, who've come onto the forum specifically to discuss that resolution, to plough through pages of old posts on the subject before they post their views. But, again, what to do?

Arrgh. It's late and I have no answers, just throwing up questions. Anyone?

Yeah, so that'll explain my move from Scandinavian Liberal Paradise to....a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise. Like has been said all this time, this resolution was not going to make Anarchy the status quo. :roll:

[OOC: Well, it has had a nasty impact on my economy. In order to recover quicker, I've upped my issues per day to 2. Not that I give a darn about my game stats, but now that I'm considering building an army and moving into the II forum for a bit, I do care a bit more -- at least enough to selectively build my stats back to where I like them.] ;)

OK, that's a fair bit to chew on.

Thats all I wanted. I'm not trying to do a downer on the various people who enjoy this game. As I said at the start I admit in advance that I may be wrong, and may have drawn the wrong conclusions from what I've seen.

And having some members of the UN telling others, "Well that's to bad for you," doesn't help the situation, it only inflames it to higher levels.

I think this is probably the worst thing that tends to happen. It seems to me that most of the 'veterans' know that certain types of proposal will be passed by the great majority of players, the ones that rarely, if ever, enter the forums.

The title of a prop can get a pass vote on its own.

The worst prop I've seen was the legalisation of Euthanasia, which narrowly passed. The actual legislation was garbage, prefaced by a sentimental piece of drivel, but it was passed. I even exploited the loopholes over on the RP forum. But the same reed came back on that: "We won, you lost, live with it or leave the UN".

If we are faced with a game rule that means no legislation can be repealed or amended once passed, then we will always have to put up with people who exploit the system.

We needn't take smug comments though!

Uh-Oh, nearly ranting there....

JOCCIA: "I guess that many of us have some sort of degree education, and are lucky enough to be able to express ourselves in a variety of ways. This does not make us better than those whose literacy is limited, it merely means we can be more verbose!"

And even some of us with degree education can make spelliong mistakes.

Ah, the joys of the in-joke...

DP

TP

It seems to me that most of the 'veterans' know that certain types of proposal will be passed by the great majority of players, the ones that rarely, if ever, enter the forums.

Yep, I'm certainly aware of it and I'm sure most other forum members are too. That doesn't mean we like it, though - I for one argued hard against the Save the Forests resolution, even though I supported the sentiment and the principle, because it was badly written and ineffective.

There's very little we can do about this, except to make damn sure that every proposal which is brought to the UN forums for discussion of a draft ends up as good as it can be before it's submitted. This includes strongly discouraging people from submitting proposals which extend UN jurisdiction too far into national sovereignty. To be honest, I think that's the best we can do.

And to some extent, the "too bad for you" comments are just stating the facts, though I agree that sometimes there can be gloating overtones to such comments. But a lot of nations don't seem to realise that all UN resolutions are binding on them, and get very stroppy indeed when they discover this - despite the fact that it's covered in the FAQ.

The cold fact of the matter is that if a resolution passes, it is "too bad" for those nations who opposed it. In the UN, you pays your money (well, you would, if the UN could levy taxes) and takes your chances as to what'll pass. And I think there are some nations that join the UN in glee at the prospect of telling other nations what to do, then get really narky when they realise that means that other nations can tell them what to do.

But, again, it's down to the veterans to point out the facts as politely as possible. And, again, n00bs are more likely to get a polite response if they themselves are polite to start with...which some of them aren't... anyone remember Alex II?

"anyone remember Alex II?"

*shudder*

I'd like to add my voice to the mix of opinions here, but I'll keep it brief:

The bottomline is we all get frustrated. It comes with being a human, dancing penguin, or crab person. ;)

But to avoid people thinking that we are being elitist, it really isn't necessary to respond to every counter opinion. Most of us are mature enough to form our own opinions on people based on their posts, not on our replies to their posts.

It is important to not take offense when our arguments / positions / opinions are publically questioned, even if the question being asked has been asked a ZILLION times before. This is possibily one of the hardest and yet most useful skills to master ... I'm certainly still working on it.


Of course there are formalized cliques ... we call them regions.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---