NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as how the vast majority of UN delegates make uninformed votes, and certainly don't take part in forums (look at the number of times each topic has been *viewed* vs. number of votes placed) the long term cause of democracy is being harmed as poorly worded proposals WILL result in unintended consequences that affect us all.

Future resolutions must be proofed through the Forums in public debate.
Those debating in forums should suggest changes (wording) with reasons. The proposal should then be edited in a way that most effectively communicates the desired end.

Part 1 (proposal 1?):
To facilitate an INFORMED decision, all observed positions MUST be summarized as a part of the final draft of a a resolution.

Part 2 (proposal 2?):
Proposals should stick to a single point and structure the rule only around that point. Ie. A proposal should for paving the rainforests should not have a second section that calls for educating trout fisherman.

This is called a rider on a bill, it's a backhanded means of sneaking an unpopular (and often bad policy) measure through a legislative body. (In my not so humble opinion) It is considered damaging to democracy. Whether one respects democratic principles or not, in the UN, each member is a nation and each has a personal incentive (out of rational self-interest) to respect democracy in this body.

Seems a little out of our reach, don't you think? After all, banning a specific kind of proposal would require a mechanical (read: Enodia clicking much more than we can reasonably require) change to the current system. Better for us to assassinate the delegates who support such flawed legislation than attempt to pass this kind of change.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

We can whack delegates now ?

And not just with a frying-pan ?

Cool !

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

[Pulls out 100-T Hyper Dimensional Hammer]

I wanna whack mods...

Unfortunatly, it does call for mechanics change... unless the voting takes place in the forum itself. You have all these polls going up... why don't... no, again to troublesome for the mods.

If they have a way of tracking how often one logs in... why can't they do the same for the UN Forums... That way people who don't log in say... at least once per week goes on probation... then released for not doing their jobs.

Can that be done Moderators?

actually, I've seen polls set here that allow for only one vote per delegate... perhaps if the voting was to change to the Forums (and time extended to allow for forum droppings... eww) perhaps that would force people to read the forums and help this become a true role playing site.

Just thought of something... Can you add a clause saying National Issues cannot become UN Resolutions?

Basically if it's a national Issue it's strickly internal and thus the UN cannot and Will not consider it for resolution.

That in itself will rule out sex (gay relations and otherwise), Drug Use, Prostitution, Gun Control, Environmental issues on a non global scale. and anything design to force a nation to change political views.

Just thought of something... Can you add a clause saying National Issues cannot become UN Resolutions?

Basically if it's a national Issue it's strickly internal and thus the UN cannot and Will not consider it for resolution.

That in itself will rule out sex (gay relations and otherwise), Drug Use, Prostitution, Gun Control, Environmental issues on a non global scale. and anything design to force a nation to change political views.

This sounds good, but also simailar to another resolution proposal that would Limit the Powers of the UN: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138068

You should read what Mikitivity (i think it's spelled) had to say concerning this. I think others share those feelings.

Seems a little out of our reach, don't you think? After all, banning a specific kind of proposal would require a mechanical (read: Enodia clicking much more than we can reasonably require) change to the current system. Better for us to assassinate the delegates who support such flawed legislation than attempt to pass this kind of change.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Well, perhaps it was just a little bit of wishful thinking in assuming that those who acted within the UN might actually read over prior submitted proposals, and that those with any amount of experience would start proposing all NEW proposals have all sides included. Can the moderators submit changes to the guidelines for proposals? If so, can proposals without others' points of view would be strongly discouraged? Just a thought. I realize I'm new and proposing a lot, so I apologize.

Lacking such "reform" within the UN (OOC read code changes.....*wince*)
We could always start an organization to maintain and promote INFORMED democracy within the UN. Several of us who are interested could keep tabs on proposals coming up for a vote, and once they are up. We divide up responsibilities for contacting delegates of major regions. Then organizing satellite groups of peole willing to contact regions 'near' their regions...working through networks of people, promoting the spread of informed voters...

g.e.

(OOC Since I digressed into territory of suggesting useful game changes that would force our incomeless game providers work harder...) I thought I would suggest an alternate means of improving the process. Raise the number of endorsements required to appoint a UN delegate within a region. (OOC I propose this as, if this whole medium is designed in an object oriented manner, I guessing it should be _relatively_ easy to set such an option.)

This would have the effect of limiting the number of regions. More nations would be concentrated in each region, and it would be more easy to transmit important information to delegates. As a result, this would probably serve to concentrate the delegates' power as well, but would also make them more visibly accountable.

Game mechanics proposals cannot be submitted to the UN.

I imagine that it's well within the power of the moderators to change the process by which proposals are submitted, and if they were to change the rules to whatever new standards all would be well. Unfortunately, the odds of such moderator-level change occuring are slim to none. While they do grace us with their presence from time to time, rarely does that lead to a fundamental shift in policy.

Kind of sad, actually. A fundamental shift in policy would really shake this place up. As for your suggestion that we form an internal agency designed to ensure only intelligent democracy lives in these halls, we'd be more than happy to encourage you. Again, however, the effects of such an undertaking will probably be less than overwhelming. Or even regular whelming. Sure, we can telegram all day long, but the number of people who would actually take that advice to heart?

Lets be honest.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs