NationStates Jolt Archive

So far, EVERY SINGLE U.N. resolution has passed. Not all of them overwhelmingly, but ALL have passed. Think about that, and how dumb it is. Its as if everybody who is voting just says "well, why not?". All it seems to take to get a resolution passed is to simply put it up to vote in the first place. If we're going to at least pretend to pretend that were trying to have an online virtual government, at least think about whether the type of government youve adopted would vote for the proposal. For example, a neo conservative fascist consumerist society would be unlikely to vote for stricter environmental regulations, so PLEASE people, try to play the part and make the U.N. in nation states something that isnt so...well...retarded.
Respectfully, :x
Ben of Benium

There have been quite a few that failed. You just don't know about them because they're not recorded.

Firstly, as Sirocco said, failed resolutions arent recorded.

Secondly, the way you use the word retarded is pretty offensive and I wouldnt take someone who uses it in that way as someone with a very worthy opinion. Dont mean to sound so blunt but I wouldnt. I hate the way people use the words retarded and spastic. It really sickens me.

Rant over, Glitziness x

Yea, you know it always seemed a little odd to me that no resolutions have ever been voted down. Why don't they record ones that have failed in the past? It seems to me that a record of those would help prevent duplicate proposals from being submitted.

i hate it when people make fun of people with birth defects when insulting others... STOP MAKING FUN OF MY BROTHER WHEN YOU CALL OTHER PEOPLE STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS MENT TO BE A FLAME!!!!

:lol: That brings back memories of I guy I know who lived in the backwoods of western Virginia, named Perkins... One guy said look at those retards there, and Perkins, in his heavy virginian drawl said, "Don't ya call them retarded, I've known lots of retarded people and they is nice people." Which of course I added in that "Yeah, you shouldn't insult all the retarded people in the world buy grouping them in with that bunch." :lol:

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

:lol: That brings back memories of I guy I know who lived in the backwoods of western Virginia, named Perkins... One guy said look at those retards there, and Perkins, in his heavy virginian drawl said, "Don't ya call them retarded, I've known lots of retarded people and they is nice people." Which of course I added in that "Yeah, you shouldn't insult all the retarded people in the world buy grouping them in with that bunch." :lol:

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

There have been quite a few that failed. You just don't know about them because they're not recorded.

Yeah, that just proved this thread wrong... :P

"Retarted"

I stopped taking your post seriously after that. You need to understand that people on here are intellegent human beings. As are many people who happen to be mentally retarded. There are many forms of intellegence, but none of them are shown by a senseless degreading of a demographic like that.

And yes, you have already been proven wrong.

ok, let's all not jump down this guy's throat for his use of the word. Yes, it is derogotory to those who have mental handicaps, but that is probably not how (s)he ment it. Words change. Language changes. Cool can be used in such a way that it has no where near the meaning of the dictonary meaning, and is totally seperate of it's origin. So not all people who use words like retarded and gay to discribe something they don't like are anti-gay or hatefull or non-careing of those who are retarded. Chill. I agree it can be hurtful, but I'm sure the person didn't mean it that way, so just chill, k? I have gay and retarded friends, and retarded family members, and I'm not getting all freaked out about this.

Anyway, he brings up a valid point. The VAST majority of reselutions pass. The UN has pretty much become a rubber stamp for anything that reaches the floor. Somewthing that might help with this is to lower the # of endorcements something needs to make it to vote, make reselutions need a 2/3 majority, or both.

Yea, you know it always seemed a little odd to me that no resolutions have ever been voted down. Why don't they record ones that have failed in the past? It seems to me that a record of those would help prevent duplicate proposals from being submitted.

It would also bring some symmetry to the game. Since a resolution, once passed, can't be repealed, it would make sense to list failed proposals and prohibit them from being resubmitted for approval. Then the UN would run on the principle that a proposal--once decided--can't be revisited for good or ill.

This wouldn't be an ideal state of affairs, but it would beat the current system. Right now, unless the mods have good memories or are keeping a list of failed proposals somewhere out of public view, a nation or group of nations could just keep resubmitting their pet proposal after an appropriate amount of time until it passes. And since, after it passes, it can't be repealed, there's a great incentive to keep trying.