NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This is more of a game mechanics *discussion*, but it pertains to what I consider an important issue to the UN.

Fortunately my proposal got enough endorsements to reach the queue. And I'm pleased than 95% of the telegrams that have been sent to my nation have been 100% supportative.

What I'm concerned with is that even after following the advise posted here on this forum of creating polite and detailed telegrams, that a few UN Delegates have sent THREATS to my nation.

While my government ignores (OOC: the silly threats to eat our national animal to be frankly funny and in good taste -- pardon the pun), threats by UN Delegates to basically tattle-tale or report my government to the game moderators for sending a *telegram* to their nation are not appreciated.

I can understand that as a UN Delegate that the number of telegrams sent are enormous, but to complain (and rudely) about a polite telegram and threaten to have a nation removed from the game is beyond EXTREME.

With that in mind, mods and others? Would it be possible for UN Delegates that really get offended like that to be put on some sort of list or to add a feature to where the rest of us won't be able to send telegrams to them?

OOC: Personally I think it is a shame, because being a UN Delegate is supposed to INCLUDE getting contacted. Obviously these nations have a very different idea, but they shouldn't feel like they can send none-in character threats to others simply because they received a telegram.

I am certainly going to talk to my region and encourage other nations to completely IGNORE other UN Delegates that exhibit this behavior, for both parties' sakes.

10kMichael

Sometimes the telegrams I got in response to my Ban the death penalty resolution, were rude too. People trying to insult me or threaten my nation... it's interesting how many obvious children or uneducated youths play this game...

Argument and debate is for the forum. I agree with Gigatron's point on this.

I also agree with your point Mikivity (I have personally been subject so myself by delegates).

There is a fairly sizable populous of Delegates that refuse their own responsibilities as such. In effect they want the power associated with their position as delegates, but refuse to accept the responsibilities they have in that capacity (man, does this sound like similar reasonings I have posted elsewhere!). In the end, such are not deserving of their position (but as they have been endorsed as such by their region, they have that power by the will of their constituents).

I would like to make it know, that I personally feel that delegates (who have assumed that position willingly) but refuse to listen to telegrams seeking approvals, to be violating their own accountability. And I find your attitudes and actions to be morally irreprehensible.

In the end there is not much that can be done about this, as it involves both a violation of the democratic process and of game mechanics.

What I would suggest, is that in the Nations forum, much like the list of National leaders, to develope a list of delegates which will act aggressively to contacts about proposal endorsements. This at least would provide proposal writters some resources as to who to, or not contactact when attempting to reach out for approval. I can tell you now, even though he lacks much power, The Western Independent Islands delegate will listen to telegrams for proposal support, however we don't have that much power as a region, being very small.

In the end there is not much that can be done about this, as it involves both a violation of the democratic process and of game mechanics.

What I would suggest, is that in the Nations forum, much like the list of National leaders, to develope a list of delegates which will act aggressively to contacts about proposal endorsements. This at least would provide proposal writters some resources as to who to, or not contactact when attempting to reach out for approval. I can tell you now, even though he lacks much power, The Western Independent Islands delegate will listen to telegrams for proposal support, however we don't have that much power as a region, being very small.

I like this idea, but what if we worked the other way and had a list (and be ballant about it) of hostile UN Delegates. Nations that will be rude and threaten you if you telegram them.

I'd go as far as to call it a hall of shame. But I don't want to create a spam list, just an anti-spam list.

It is sad though, because UN Delegates that are unwilling to endorse proposals or receive telegrams effectively make it all that much harder for proposals to become resolutions.

A game mechanics version of this would be to have two types of UN Delegates: those who can endorse resolutions and those who volunteer to not receive telegrams and likewise are not counted against the total number of endorsements required.

For example: if 10% of the active delegates choose to be selective about who can telegram them, then the effect number of UN delegate endorsements required should also be reduced by 10%.

Unfortunately this is a heck of a lot of work and perhaps better suited to NS v2.0 where people will have to pay to play (thus eliminating many of the rude UN delegates).

10kMichael

Sometimes the telegrams I got in response to my Ban the death penalty resolution, were rude too. People trying to insult me or threaten my nation... it's interesting how many obvious children or uneducated youths play this game...

Interesting. When being critical of others' rudenesses, it might not be the best persuasive technique to launch somewhat of your own insult...

(OOC: I think one reason this is a youth-dominated game is because it offers a chance to create one's own reality. Young people are often full of angst against their real surroundings because they have little control over it and it might not have their best interests in mind. But through this game one has a chance to remake, in a slight way, his reality and create something wholly for himself)

Back to the topic of the thread, I've talked to my regional delegate and he says that he doesn't receive too many telegrams at all. Of course, he isn't exatly active in the draft and campaign of most proposals, but still I think that the "silent majority" of delegates are perfectly fine receiving carefully persuasive and polite telegrams for proposals. Some people are just rude, in real life and in game life, and that seems their only way to communicate. I've encountered one of these people and talked to him about it. He didn't care if others were turned off by his harshness and lack of understanding.

As far as delegates refusing their responsibilities, some may not be fully aware of them. I've seen several cases where the delegate position is viewed entirely as a power play for the region and no one is at all aware of the implications of the position beyond that.

In the forum the offending individual's voice is of approximately equal value as another's. But in a telegram he has almost all of the say. I can see why some people opt to express their opinions only through the very self-power-centric (just made that up) telegram as opposed to on the forum where the same thought might be shot down without a moments thought. I didn't say that I think it's right that some people take argument and debate outside the forum; I can just see why they do it.

Yes, a list of hostile delegates would be the nominal form, I would not neccessarily label it as a "Hall of Shame", but maybe simply the "Hostile Delegates List". Or maybe the "U.N. Delgates no-call list" :wink:

Well I have received many telegrams as a UN Delegate asking me to support silly proposals. When I refuse or do not reply, I have often received rude comments.

If you are going to start a database up of rude delegates, then at the same time you might want to create one of rude players who send ludicrous proposals too!

Since the moderators erase some proposals, I would say any delegate who receives calls to support ones which are itching to be erased should treat the telegram as spam.

Well I have received many telegrams as a UN Delegate asking me to support silly proposals. When I refuse or do not reply, I have often received rude comments.

If you are going to start a database up of rude delegates, then at the same time you might want to create one of rude players who send ludicrous proposals too!

Since the moderators erase some proposals, I would say any delegate who receives calls to support ones which are itching to be erased should treat the telegram as spam.

Now this is a side of the coin I haven't seen before... I think that a no-call list would be effective against the rude delegates, I just wonder how it would be judged who was "rude" and who wasn't. But what about a watch-out-for-telegrams-from list? That's a new idea...

(OOC: I think one reason this is a youth-dominated game is because it offers a chance to create one's own reality. Young people are often full of angst against their real surroundings because they have little control over it and it might not have their best interests in mind. But through this game one has a chance to remake, in a slight way, his reality and create something wholly for himself)


OOC: Um, if the telegrams Gigatron is talking about are even equal to the attacks that nation had on their character by a single troll on my regional forum, then he / she is understating the rudeness. In other words, I can look the other way when somebody wants to vent.

I agree with your comment, but sometimes an angst driven person in the real world doesn't have the soft power you talked about to do this sort of thing. For example, my own kid brother was talking about how the United States should just start dropping nukes on the Middle East and drilling for oil in Alaska. He was drunk at the time and normally not prone to such a poorly thought out statement. But it took four of us telling him that the minute any nation starts to really take out civilian populations like that, that others will act and with extreme force. He went on and on, but my point being, a drunk adult ranting with his buddies can say dumb things, because there is no real consequence.

Likewise, NationStates doesn't really reward or penalize a nation from war or hate mongering vs. peace broking or money dropping. This all has to be accomplished through role-playing. It think a few of us that would love to actively roleplay diplomats understand why people might lash out with personal attacks, but it still is going to certainly degrade our game, when in reality their game might really be about trolling around just like that.

I think the point I was trying to bring up is: Is there a way that we can do more than just ignore rude comments? The reason I say this, is as more and more nations take to refusing to endorse proposals, it is going to mean less time for writing and more time spent in telegramming for the few of us that really are playing a different sort of game. That is fine, but I'm sure that if we had more time to roleplay and write, and less time in mechanical details, such as avoiding obvious hot heads, that the rest of you might enjoy (maybe or maybe not) the change in quality this forum takes. :)

Naturally I'm assuming that this is something a few of you might be interested in. If not, then I apologize for bringing this up and naturally I'll then adapt my expectations. :)




Back to the topic of the thread, I've talked to my regional delegate and he says that he doesn't receive too many telegrams at all. Of course, he isn't exatly active in the draft and campaign of most proposals, but still I think that the "silent majority" of delegates are perfectly fine receiving carefully persuasive and polite telegrams for proposals.

For the record, your delegate (who I just did an intelligence search on) was most certainly not one of the rude ones in my experience. I'd say he is doing *exactly* what is expected of him.

And I completely agree, we are really talking about a small number of people. But I have talked to elder UN nations (very active players) who are still in the game, but left the UN because of rude nations. Sadly it only takes a small handful to spoil things. Is there a way to lessen this?

10kMichael

Well I have received many telegrams as a UN Delegate asking me to support silly proposals. When I refuse or do not reply, I have often received rude comments.

If you are going to start a database up of rude delegates, then at the same time you might want to create one of rude players who send ludicrous proposals too!

Since the moderators erase some proposals, I would say any delegate who receives calls to support ones which are itching to be erased should treat the telegram as spam.

Now this is a side of the coin I haven't seen before... I think that a no-call list would be effective against the rude delegates, I just wonder how it would be judged who was "rude" and who wasn't. But what about a watch-out-for-telegrams-from list? That's a new idea...

While I agree with Agrippa that a UN proposal seeker should NEVER send rude or hostile telegrams when a Delegate politely says NO, I'd like to remind Agrippa that sending a UN proposal seeker who simply sent a telegram, "Never send this spam to me again or I'll tell on you," is rude. (This is of course paraphrased, but I have received this very sort of telegram.)

Everybody needs to keep in mind that if you are any nation and you get a cold call or rude telegram, it is up to you to just stop the chain of bad blood by simply dropping the other nation into your list of nations to refuse telegrams too.

Currently I have two nations on that list ... both of them hostile delegates. One of them reads the UN forums (the other I've not seen here yet). I seriously doubt the one of the forums even realizes how rude he was, but I think the idea of what a "silly" proposal is, is largely subjective.

One that violates game mechanics, for sure. But let's not all become moderators and allow them to handle those.

But resolutions / proposals that we don't like ... blacklisting delegates there?

Come on. This could easily turn into a he said / she said argument.

I'd rather it work that instead of waiting to ignore a telegram *after* you've received one, that instead that you (as any nation) can be put on a list that somehow easily reduces the amount of telegrams you get (naturally if you don't want to get proposal emails, then you shouldn't be allowed to impact the game mechanics with respect to the number of endorsements) -or- that if in the case of UN Delegates that simply refuse to ignore polite telegramming campaigns that the rest of us (UN Delegates and Members) can help each other by making a list of uncooperative nations. Though that second option could turn into a massive he said / she said thing too. :(

10kMichael

I'm with this idea as well. A hostile delegate hurts your chances of passing a proposal in two ways, once in refusing what comes with the job, and once in wasting your campaign time. The list will cut one of those out as a factor. It should also suit the hostile delegates just fine, as they will be contacted significantly less often.

And by the way, if someone gets back at me and says "I read proposals on my own, please for future reference don't telegram me, thanks," I'd be totally cool with that, or even a polite rejection. It's just really not in anyone's best interests to jump out biting like some of these guys do. A delegate's gotta understand that what proposal writers do is necessary if we ever hope to get 140-ish approvals.

Edit: Maybe we could stipulate that two or three seperate UN members need to lodge a complaint against a Delegate for them to make it onto the hostile list. One complaint could easily end up one person's word against the other's, two or three starts to decrease the odds pretty well.

Well I have received many telegrams as a UN Delegate asking me to support silly proposals. When I refuse or do not reply, I have often received rude comments.

If you are going to start a database up of rude delegates, then at the same time you might want to create one of rude players who send ludicrous proposals too!

Since the moderators erase some proposals, I would say any delegate who receives calls to support ones which are itching to be erased should treat the telegram as spam.

Now this is a side of the coin I haven't seen before... I think that a no-call list would be effective against the rude delegates, I just wonder how it would be judged who was "rude" and who wasn't. But what about a watch-out-for-telegrams-from list? That's a new idea...

I would say the list be operated similarly to the National Leaders list, rude-delegates would be posted in the order, and added to the list.

I would say, for the benefit of doubt, that some evidence of rudeness, or maybe based on multi-cases of abuse, they should be added to the list, instead of merely based upon a single case (multiple-witnesses). Maybe an order like 5 complaints before posting to the list.

On the flip side. Delegates are going to see telegramed absurd proposal approval requests. But that is the price of your position as a Delegate. In lieu of your position you are held to higher standards, so in light of this, you should either add these people to your ingore list, or respond with a very tort, and factful response stating you will not support it, and the reason, if any, why. Without rudeness.... or both.

As members attempting to gain approval for proposal, it is their job to telegram delegates for approval (in a non rude manner, to garner support). As Delegates however, it is your responsibility to look at and determine approval or not, on proposals.

Edit: Maybe we could stipulate that two or three seperate UN members need to lodge a complaint against a Delegate for them to make it onto the hostile list. One complaint could easily end up one person's word against the other's, two or three starts to decrease the odds pretty well.

Two things, I'm sure that some delegates understand how hard it is to campaign and write proposals, while there others that don't. I've noticed there are a large number of delegates with populations under 200 million (meaning relatively new to NationStates or whom spend a significant amount of time in vacation mode).

Second, I agree that multiple "complaints" should be sampled if we do anything, but I'm wondering if there is a word other than complaints that could be used?

Or maybe this type of resource is best kept at the regional level?

10kMichael

You're absolutely right on your first point, I didn't mean to come off that way. The delegates we're talking about here are definitely in a vast minority.

Maybe we can call them incidents or something, somewhat in the spirit of the International Incidents forum.

I'm not sure whether we should put it here or keep it at a regional level, I was about to TG you and suggest we keep a copy of the list (if it gets off the ground) on our region's off-site board. So my instinct wants to say both. There would be a little greater flexibility that way, if a well-trusted individual of a region has an incident, he can post it with his region and his advice will be taken immediately, whereas with the UN list it could take some time for other incidents from the same user to take place.

I'm also wondering something else now, who on the UN board would keep track of incidents prior to the delegate's placement on the list? I'd suggest keeping the reporting process low key, such as a TG to whoever maintains the not-quite-the-list list.

Maybe we can call them incidents or something, somewhat in the spirit of the International Incidents forum.


Actually I like that name, since they could be isolated or patterned behavior, and ultimate are diplomatic incidents, and not much more.

Another way might be for nations to keep and collect a listing of "International Tensions". Obviously the list would extend beyond simple telegrams. But this is really sort of a national-level thing.

Perhaps after a few other things on my task list, I could see my nation building its own list.


I'm not sure whether we should put it here or keep it at a regional level, I was about to TG you and suggest we keep a copy of the list (if it gets off the ground) on our region's off-site board. So my instinct wants to say both.

I'm starting to think this is really more of a regional level issue, because in part of your point about keeping the list up to date.

Also given the fact that regions do somethings work together, maybe this is something we both take back to our region? Unless of course there is a strong desire on the part of others for something like this.

The major problem is that this forum really doesn't have the reliability nor flexibility to really sticky something like this. Afterall, we are really just trying to reduce the tension between hot heads and over achievers. :)

10kMichael

I'm all for taking it back to the region whether the UN forum likes the idea or not, honestly. It would be a lot easier than doing it for the whole UN, and it really is a solid idea. We could maybe even propose that receiving incident reports and maintaining the list be a responsibility of the Minister of Communications or External Affairs or something.

The only problem I see in doing it for the UN is just the logistics. It'd eat up a lot of somebody's time to keep track of incidents, tensions, and the actual list itself. Can't hurt to see how much attention this draws though, maybe somebody will actually want to do that, or maybe a couple people would share the job, someone counting incidents while the other does the visible upkeep.

Given the amount of time needed for this, I believe I at present can take on the duty, if you would like, telegram Tekania to submit the incident reports with Delegates. I'm debating on whether posting this in one of the forums here in NS, though I might setup an off site location to do so.

List will be available at my consulate office....

http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania/consolate

Awesome, thanks a lot for doing that.

We should really hammer out a system for it. Actually I guess the main thing is just the question of how many incidents is reasonable before placing a Delegate on the list? And I guess we should figure out a way to get the word out that you're the one to TG on this matter.

This is absurd, any list you create will be subjective.

This list shall not be created.


What you could do is make a list of proposal-creating nations that have spammed to attempt to rally support. A spam message, different than a regular telegram, would be along the lines of an unaddressed, generic message sent to a nation that doesn't even share the same views.

This is absurd, any list you create will be subjective.

This list shall not be created.


What you could do is make a list of proposal-creating nations that have spammed to attempt to rally support. A spam message, different than a regular telegram, would be along the lines of an unaddressed, generic message sent to a nation that doesn't even share the same views.

I will be maintaining the list at my consulate office

United Nations Delegate "No-Call" list(Offsite at the Consulate for the Republic of Tekania) (http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania/consolate/viewtopic.php?t=2)

I don't plan on arbitrarily adding anyone to the list, merely those delegates, that in repeated circumstances (5 or more) have replied with abusive telegrams. Then valid proposal writers, can simply not even contacting these delegates.

Incident reports should be telegrammed to tekania, here in NS (I will ignore postings on this at the consultate. All incident reports should include the name of the Delegate, as well as a the full text of your telegram, and their response. (So this is not merely an arbitrary claim).

On the flip side, the idea of a list of "spammer" nations is pointless, delegates already have all the resources necessary to avoid spammer-nations. This list is a tool for propsal writers.

This is absurd, any list you create will be subjective.

Of course it would, although posting what a delegate said would go a long long way towards justifying their inclusion.

This list shall not be created.

Too late, it has been started. :roll:

What you could do is make a list of proposal-creating nations that have spammed to attempt to rally support. A spam message, different than a regular telegram, would be along the lines of an unaddressed, generic message sent to a nation that doesn't even share the same views.

So how would you know how a nation shares the same views or not exactly? And have you ever tried contacting enough delegates to get support for a proposal? trust me, it takes a while, and if you have to enter each nations title into the telegram, it takes even longer.

Additionally, nobody gets banned for advertising - they get banned for being offensive, which inevitably happens when a delegate decides to send their response, which unfortunately happens from a malicous minority.

Personally, I'd be inclined as the sender to send a generic telegram, but apologise for the sterility of the telegram. A little bit of give and take from both sides works wonders.
________________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6355/england2.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/04605/page=display_region/region=england)