NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does everyone think they have to post eight and a half pages to get their point across? Usually, if someone posts a really long proposal, I'm not even interested long enough to hear them out! This kind of "just spit it out" politics is more effective, because then more people can get their point across sooner, and thus discussions are more involved. So I just want to ask, that you consider people who don't like to spend 25 hours a day at their computer, reading lengthy proposals that could be covered in about two sentences. Like delegates, who have to read through each and every one of these, and decide whether it's good.

And if you want me to hear something, telegram me, because chances are I won't visit here for another four months.

Heh, are you just ranting, or are you asking for a more stringent character limit on proposals?

Why does everyone think they have to post eight and a half pages to get their point across? Usually, if someone posts a really long proposal, I'm not even interested long enough to hear them out!


You know you are an American Politician's wet dream ... er ideal voter: ignorant and damn proud of it!

Here are three suggestions that may make your job easier:

1) Read only the NationStates summary at the top of the resolution and just ALWAYS vote / endorse based on that. It is easy. A 10-year old can do that.

2) On long proposals, skip over the preamble and read just the numbered clauses. They are usually short and to the point.

3) Don't play a political game. Stick to playing a game where you don't have to *read*.

OOC: Personally, I hope you never vote in real life. Anybody who whines about something being too long really should spend his / her life working at McDonalds or something, because as the Lisa Simpson's talking Barbie Doll on would say, "Math is hard, let's bake cookies!"

You know you are an American Politician's wet dream ... er ideal voter: ignorant and damn proud of it!

Here are three suggestions that may make your job easier:

1) Read only the NationStates summary at the top of the resolution and just ALWAYS vote / endorse based on that. It is easy. A 10-year old can do that.

2) On long proposals, skip over the preamble and read just the numbered clauses. They are usually short and to the point.

3) Don't play a political game. Stick to playing a game where you don't have to *read*.

OOC: Personally, I hope you never vote in real life. Anybody who whines about something being too long really should spend his / her life working at McDonalds or something, because as the Lisa Simpson's talking Barbie Doll on would say, "Math is hard, let's bake cookies!"

Hate to say it because I don't like going after people personally, but I agree with you.

You don’t want to read and this is our fault?

Giordano,
Sigless.

In keeping with the desires of the thread starter, I shall make this as brief as I possibly can: lol!

Hate to say it because I don't like going after people personally, but I agree with you.

OOC: I'm 50/50 on attacking folks, and here is why: anybody can sign up and play NationStates. But if you look around there are plenty of neoNazis and hatemongers in the game. There is a reason why Max and co have banned swastikas from being national symbols. These people are trolls. The come to all the forums to get a rise out of people, and frankly I'm not going to pull my punches when I see clear signs of stupidity or hatred.

I'm hoping that in NationStates 2.0 that the virtue of the game being a pay game, that we'll see fewer hatemongers around.

And I'm completely convinced that anybody who complains of 8 page resolutions (which is physically impossible, the proposal queue cuts off before you hit 2 pages ... trust me, I've tried) is full of it. We all know 8 page resolutions don't exist and that such a person is posting just to get a rise out of the experience.

So yeah, I'm more than happy to flame those trolls. And by doing so, I'm not about to score any Ghandi points *and* I open myself up to flames as well, but the difference is, I think it is clear that I am also capable of treating people with respect and keeping an open mind about arguments relating to UN discussions (not rants about game mechanics).

OOC: I'm 50/50 on attacking folks, and here is why: anybody can sign up and play NationStates. But if you look around there are plenty of neoNazis and hatemongers in the game. There is a reason why Max and co have banned swastikas from being national symbols. These people are trolls. The come to all the forums to get a rise out of people, and frankly I'm not going to pull my punches when I see clear signs of stupidity or hatred.

I'm hoping that in NationStates 2.0 that the virtue of the game being a pay game, that we'll see fewer hatemongers around.

And I'm completely convinced that anybody who complains of 8 page resolutions (which is physically impossible, the proposal queue cuts off before you hit 2 pages ... trust me, I've tried) is full of it. We all know 8 page resolutions don't exist and that such a person is posting just to get a rise out of the experience.

So yeah, I'm more than happy to flame those trolls. And by doing so, I'm not about to score any Ghandi points *and* I open myself up to flames as well, but the difference is, I think it is clear that I am also capable of treating people with respect and keeping an open mind about arguments relating to UN discussions (not rants about game mechanics).

I agree with you. I can't tell if you response is a response to me or just your thoughts in general which my post brought up. I wasn't criticizing at all. I have no problem flaming trolls, as long as they are clearly trolls and not just someone with a different opinion.

I agree with you. I can't tell if you response is a response to me or just your thoughts in general which my post brought up. I wasn't criticizing at all. I have no problem flaming trolls, as long as they are clearly trolls and not just someone with a different opinion.

Both. I've already been feeling bad about the tone I've been taking towards some posters and in more than one thread. But I also kept my tone very civil in other threads.

I think the complaint about proposals being too long was not a valid complaint (given that the author way over stated the length of proposals), but I do agree that it would be difficult if I were a UN Delegate and wanted to read 15 pages of long proposals. I would very much cheat by starting with the NS impacts and then jumping to the bottom and reading up.

I actually knew that bringing up HIV/AIDS and drug use would bring in both trolls and people who honestly have an axe to grind on the subject. It is a difficult situation to be in ... but at the same time, I also was hoping (idealistically perhaps) that some of socities beliefs about these people might be changed if more people would read up on the subject a bit more.

It would almost be nice if nations that are roleplaying would hint that they are just roleplaying ... but maybe that shouldn't be necessary? The question really comes, how do you response to people saying, "I think all drug users should be removed from the gene pool." ???

Okay: let's say that all proposals had to be "to the point", as you want, being only a sentence long. Then you would get a proposal like this:

"All immigrants have equal rights."

In theory, it sounds great, but really it is rife with problems. One, what are the immigrants equal to? Other immigrants? Other people in society? My boombox? Catfish?

Secondly, what are "rights"? All of the guaranteed rights and freedoms as defined by the U.N. Charter, or just simply the right to drink milk? Or, just simply the right to their fingernails?

Thirdly, what is an immigrant? Is it someone who just came from another country? Do they have to stay in the country a certain amount of time to be called an "immigrant", or could someone who visited the nation just this morning claim to be an immigrant? Do they have to be classified as "legal" to receive these rights?

You may believe that getting to the point would solve a lot of things, but if questions like these were not resolved and spelled out in the resolution, you'd get everyone trying to find some loophole- and everyone does- just so they do not have to apply the resolution. That is why they have to be drawn out- so that as many loopholes as possible are covered.