NationStates Jolt Archive

I think not.

I say we overturn the next one..

..What right has the UN to impose rules on the rest of us?

If the rules are that sensible then we will have made them ourselves and all ations are different. They may have cause to not benefit from such things.
What if a nation where many all have aids are made to compulsorily feed into a world blood-bank?
What is a nation crippled by poverty and spending all it's recources on merely keeping people alive were compulsorily made to divert that toward some foolish space-scheme or a not-essential drive for equality in education?
Likewise, urging a nation which needs it's inducry in order to repel an invasion to instead conserve it's forests, it makes no sense.

Basically:

1) No UN resolution can justly be set in stone as a solid rule for it may cripple smaller or weaker nations.
2) If a UN resolution is simply suggesting a course of action it lacks the right and strength to be a UN resolution and so become law.

TNE

Title should read "UN".

Apologies,

TNE

1) There have been failed resolutions, one since Ecopoeia's (and your nation's) inception.

2) The UN has the powers the NS universe has prescribed it. Not much can be done about that.

Many proposals never get far enough through the process to receive votes; you should count those too. Maybe things would look more fair then.

I think not.

Your entire theory is flawed, several proposals have failed to pass general voting. Mainly due to being poorly written, stupid, or simply not worthy of U.N. attention.

I say we overturn the next one.

Errr, no, it takes alot of work to get a proposal to quorum, and we shall never vote down a worthy proposal simply to suit a "conspsiracy theory".

What right has the UN to impose rules on the rest of us?

Practically every right, in regard to us joining and staying of our own free will, and the game mechanics them-selves.

If the rules are that sensible then we will have made them ourselves and all nations are different. They may have cause to not benefit from such things.

Yes, we may have made such rules for ourselves, but by passing them in U.N. law they are rules for all member nations, regardless of political, social, economic, racial, or social circumstances or creed.

And yes, all nations are different.

And yes, not all may benefit from a law which is pased, but stiff chips.

It all comes down to "You don't win'em all" and "You pays your money and you takes your chance". We just have to live with it. Every other member does, most with no problems what-so-ever.

Barring the server of coarse, :wink:

What if a nation where many all have aids are made to compulsorily feed into a world blood-bank?

This was covered in the debate and the proposal itself, while I disagreed over the proposal, I think this was at some point covered. Basically, the organs/blood are supposed to be tested by the red cross for a variety of parthogens and other problems.

And if you were so worried you should have done as I, dropped out of the U.N. for a few days, :wink:

What is a nation crippled by poverty and spending all it's recources on merely keeping people alive were compulsorily made to divert that toward some foolish space-scheme or a not-essential drive for equality in education?

While a nation must follow these laws as they are enforced 100% by game mechanics, most assume some common sense is involved, you know, they do contribute, but only a little bit, and if they have the problems as you say some may, then maybe they should ask for aid? Perhaps they should handle their national issues a little better?

Likewise, urging a nation which needs it's inducry in order to repel an invasion to instead conserve it's forests, it makes no sense.

Invasion? Two words for you bucko, "I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon/s." War is an R.P. component, ergo you don't want to play, you say so. Thank-fully its that simple.

But on reflection I assume now you mean the actual actions of a theoretical government rather then just how this game is played, hmmm, surely there is some way to maintain a defence industry with-out "hurting" the forests?

1) No UN resolution can justly be set in stone as a solid rule for it may cripple smaller or weaker nations.

Thats odd, I seem to remember no such problems when I started out, and might I add, all U.N. law is set in stone, practically, and maybe such nations should look to how they got into such circumstances? Its more to do with how national issues are handled I would think. But thats me (shrugs).

2) If a UN resolution is simply suggesting a course of action it lacks the right and strength to be a UN resolution and so become law.

Though they rarely do as little as "suggest" they usually do it in such as way as that by suggesting this and having the resolution pass, the "suggestion" itself becomes law,

E.g. "With the passing of this resolution it is suggested that the acts of blah, blah, and blah, become out-lawed in all member nations now and in the future...". Thus one assumes it is so, that they are out-lawed. Hmmm. I don't know if there is an example to back me up on that though.

- The Rep of Komokom, Region Minister of Stuff.

Komokom, there's no need to tell people to "drop dead". Knock it off or take a warning.

Consider it knocked off, notice taken, post altered. Chill pill consumed.

And thus, apology made.

- TRoK. RMoS.

While I agree with what most of Komokom's arguments, I do have some differing opinions. (hey that's what this forum is about yah?)

To save space, I'll just re-print the start of the paragraph I'm referencing.

"Yes, we may have made such rules for ourselves... Barring the server of coarse, "

Of course, the way things are going... soon all nations in the UN will be the same. because alot of the resolutions voted in deal with National Concerns... not international ones.

"This was covered in the debate... dropped out of the U.N. for a few days"

and when you re-join, you have to obey all the resolutions voted in. And just because it was debated... the debate is not tacked onto the resolution. after a while who's to say what was said or clarified. and testing is not fool-proof. to speed up testing only a few packets of blood are tested. to test every one of them will shorten the blood's life-span. but now I digress...

And again as it goes, soon all UN Nationstates won't have National Issues cuz they are being voted into resolutions.

"Thats odd, I seem to remember no such problems when I started out..."

Heh, but if they don't care because they are not role-playing?
If you need examples of choices being outlawed, re-read the resolutions. There are many different types of nations out there. You have the Democratic ones, the Republics all similar. Try this. step back, switch your mindset to a nation type opposite of yours. If you're democratic, think like a Dictator (remember, you can be a Dictator but not EVIL.) and look at the resolutions again. Suddenly, some of the kind, good hearted resolutions are going totally against how you rule your people, in fact, it seems almost like the UN IS telling you how to govern your people.

For the Education Resolution. I ran a little experiment. I Telegrammed alot of delegates explaining why I would vote against the resolution. Over 40% of those I telegrammed admitted they did not consider the views I put forth and some even pulled their votes out pending further investigation. This was only a handfull and just the delegates, Imaging all those nations who say "WOW now I'm in the UN... I'll just vote yes on this one title Education Reform... All done for today."

I as a role-player also Shudder.

Oh and I apologize to all those I bothered with my Telegram experiment.

If you don't like the United Nations, leave it, otherwise, just deal with the agreement you took when you joined: That you follow the resolutions passed.

he does have a point. People, I think, go on the UN thing, read the headline of the proposal at vote and think "that sounds nice, I'll vote for it" without reading the entire thing. The point of putting these things up for vote is to see whether they should be used or not.

Very true, but the percentage of people who actually use the forums (or this one in particular) frequently enough to keep up to date on the debate about a proposal is very small compared with the percentage who vote. Try as we might, we can't seem to avoid this sort of "mandate of ignorance" that some proposals arrive at.

Oh, I know how we could try, boot every-body out. Why? Because you could then set it that getting entry meant having to read a page or ten of information regarding the importance of the U.N., rules about proposals, little bits most people seem to miss, then, once they submit their request to join, send them a question which must be answered correctly, from a random set list, if they really can be bothered, they'll have studied and get it right. If they do not, stiff, they have to wait 30 days before trying again. Naturally this idea is open to alteration, but once we solve the semantics, the details, the game mechanics, the re-coding and the general out-cry of people booted out who could not get back in,

Drum roll,

All 50 of us can get down to business... ;)

Rim-shot.

- The Rep of Komokom.

sounds good to me…but let's face it, it would never actually happen! :lol: :wink:

If you don't like the United Nations, leave it, otherwise, just deal with the agreement you took when you joined: That you follow the resolutions passed.

Hm, whatever.

I still like the results of the poll!

:D

I find it ironic that the last two resolutions have passed with over 11,000 votes. I think the UN has been hijacked by a band of left leaning Global Communists who will always vote for any UN resolution. As long as they can globalize their Socialism into the front yard of every State, then they're happy.
After all, the goal of the UN is the absolute erasure of every Nation/State's sovereignty. Militant-Ireland will not sit quietly on this.
Our ports will shut down all imports from the UN regarding blood donations. How are we to know if they decided NOT to screen someone's blood because they were in a high-risk category and didn't want to offend that person (the same way Canada does)?
I will not risk my populations well being so that a bunch of mini-Marxists can feel good about themselves by thinking that they're making a difference. Of course, to take donations, test the specimens, store, distribute and overwatch will all take a series of bureaucracies. Does this mean more taxation to cover the cost?
In defiance to UNEC, and the Global Commie Blood Bank, M-I has turned it's NUCLEAR ARSENAL* in the general direction of the UN Headquarters.

*NUCLEAR ARSENAL is the registered trademark of NUCLEAR ARSENAL, INC. The ICBBR (InterContinental Balistic Bottle Rocket), and the Uranium Ball duct taped to the bottom of it are the sole property of said Corporation. Though the range and destructive power of the ICBBR is limited, it's threatened use should be taken seriously.

As I see it, there are three major issues with UN resolution voting.

The delegates that make up the large blocs of votes generally vote in accordance with polls on their regional forums. While this does lead to debate, it's only regional debate and not the full debate that can be found here.
The forums are horrific to get to these days, and given that most people don't access the UN forum first thing when they get in, there is often little time to read any threads.
Many posts on UN debate threads are by new and inexperienced nations who don't understand the UN process, thereby lowering the level of debate.

This has been an OOC post.

Something which may or may not have been considered:

Some nations in the UN may only look so far as the Category/Strength, and vote based on that...
Just a passing thought I had regarding the number of people who vote vs. the number that debate.

If you don't like the United Nations, leave it, otherwise, just deal with the agreement you took when you joined: That you follow the resolutions passed.

Hm, whatever.

I still like the results of the poll!

:D

Of course you do, because so long as it agrees with you, you don't have to admit that you can keep thinking you're right. :wink: