NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing how the last 2 Resolutions ( Education and Blood Bank), which lakt of any real aplication capabilitie and had a lot of errors in it´s demands, my concern has grown about how difrent staates are voting.

I mean, the last 2 resolutions where just real crap, and people voted for it.
Know that there is an more intresting resolution on (Space Defence), which in an ocation could realy help, people are against it.

So I ask:"What´s up?"

It seems that a resolution could be passed which would invalid all prior and later to come resolutions, and people would still vote for it

that was really hard to read and understand. But anyway- States vote on how they feel in the UN, it doesn't always make sense. The arrival of a resolution showed that it gained the necessary support to make it to general voting, where it goes from there depends on how individual nations interprete the resolution. So, for this one, many people see it as militaristic (if they are pacifistic), unecessary (if they are space nations), stupid (as many do), or something they don't want to participate in.

In essense, what needs to be done at this point, is for those of us who are interested in creating dynamic and good policy to be good dilligent UN members.
What this effectively translates into is that we must redraft new resolutions to be put to vote that correct the unclear grammar and focus the ideas of past proposals. For 'good' proposals that do not pass, we must do the same, clearing up loopholes that could lead to unintended consequences (ie. asteroid defense turned into a weapon by a powerful minority).

Resolutions should stress in clear terms, how such unintended consequences are to be avoided, and how they are to be funded in a way that is fair to nations involved.