NationStates Jolt Archive

In what ways do you think that the UN could be better?

Here is my short list, broken into 6 categories:

- Less Time Spent on Telegramming
- More Time Spent on Draft Proposals

- More Research Given to Proposal Ideas
- Debate would Focus on Presenting more Facts
- Debate would Avoid Common Rhetoric

- Nations Would Still Propose Amendments (Even If They Don't Stick)

- Proposal / Resolution Sponsors Would Be Invited to Regional Forums
- Proposal / Resolution Sponsors Would Visit Regional Forums

- UN Delegates Would "Moderate" and Keep Regional Discussions "Diplomatic"


Finally ...

- Experienced Nations Need to Stick Around in the UN

The last problem is the greatest problem. Though not a knock on newbies, anybody who has been around for more than a few months has seen the situation where some player who really doesn't have a grasp of a few concepts will come and hammer away at the forum for a week and then loose interest. While it is great to stir activity, much of what results is kinda negative, and detracts from the other items in my list.

My pet pevees:

People mis-representing sovereignty,
People mis-representing social welfare (not socialism, but welfare),
People mis-representing colonialism / imperialism, and
People confusing bi-lateral with uni-lateral.

In other words, if the few older nations around weren't having to define "sovereignty" over and over again, we would would rather spend our time helping newbies write their own proposals.

Seeing a proposal from start to finish is a great experience. Yeah, I'm still catching flack from some people who don't like "long" and "boring" words, but I think the proposal / resolution is a great educational experience.

I would like it if it were easier for proposal submitters to contact delegates.

I believe Mik's pretty much summed up in many words what most of us hardcore UN believers want to see within the NS UN world today. Hopefully, NS II will accomodate it.

Mik, I know you're blocking my TGs after our little spat, but there's actually something I wanted to discuss with you about the UN within NS, if you could contact me, I'd appreciate it.

Interesting...

I see myself as having a strong grasp of the subject of sovereignty. However; I would like to hear more from Mik on the issue and definition as he/she sees it.

I would like the oppurtunity to repeal UN proposals. Maybe the admins could set up a time limit (i.e. no repeals for at least three to six months after the proposal passes), or maybe declare that any resolution that passes with a 3/4 majority is not repealable. But as it stands, resolutions are permanent.

I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseum... just my take.

I agree with Puyallup. I would also like to see the Secretary-General resolution put into act. UN members could elect a Secetary-General to serve, say, one month terms, and they would be able to do things such as instantly send proposals into quorom, or something to that extent, IM all delegates at once, perhaps. Any other ideas on this?

One idea I had was to have a NS security counsel.

It could be made up of the 7 game mechanics delegates (Can you name all 7?), 7 delegates randomly selected monthly based on population of their regions somehow, and one mod.

The security counsel would be something people would try to work to get on, instead of people perpetually trying to become mods or pacific delegates. They could have broader types of resolutions, like resolutions condemning groups, regions, or specific players. This would have no game effect, but it would mirror the real UN. (Security counsel condemns people but has little or no effect, while the general assembly works on largely unnoticed important legislation)

With the mod in the group, you could have it that a unanimous vote by the security counsel could change game mechanics. (The mod would technically have a veto over any game mechanics resolution, but the votes could gage player support.) Any normal resolution would need at least 2 of the 15 to bring it to a vote, and game mechanics resolutions would need 8 of the 15.

Of course, this in itself is a change in game mechanics... but it is just an idea. I'm new in the UN forum, I hope I don't receive a warning just for talking about changing game mechanics.

I would like the oppurtunity to repeal UN proposals. Maybe the admins could set up a time limit (i.e. no repeals for at least three to six months after the proposal passes), or maybe declare that any resolution that passes with a 3/4 majority is not repealable. But as it stands, resolutions are permanent.

I know this has probably been discussed ad nauseum... just my take.

How about a simple review board? A "This has been done here before" statement from someone. Redoing the same thing repeatedly is ridiculous - particularly when the "newer version" is weak.

Of course, this in itself is a change in game mechanics... but it is just an idea. I'm new in the UN forum, I hope I don't receive a warning just for talking about changing game mechanics.

The mods don't issue warnings for talking about game mechanics, but when the game mechanics threads get extensive, they've been known to move even UN based talk to the Moderation or Technical forums. :)

But believe it or not, they do read / scan our posts and for the most part appreciate nations like yours trying to *work* with others. At least this is the impression I've been given.

There is another option that wouldn't involve game mechanics. The active members on this forum could "elect" a group of 7, 9, 15 UN members to act as a UN Advisory Council and using an offsite forum, the group could frequently read the submitted proposals and help the mods by taking amongst themselves using the same guidelines the mods use, and when proposals seem to violate those guidelines could ask the mod to bump the proposal out.

If the proposal doesn't break the guideline, just remain very very quiet, because only the mods are the police, and I think that is a good way ... as we've found out that sometimes personalities and interests can conflict otherwise.

Not nearly as glamorous, but maybe a bit better.

As for proposals that you might not like, a polite telegram to its author with a suggestion often is met with an EVEN politer thank you telegram. :) Though some nations are here to air out their world view and try and move others to their position, if your people are explorers by nature, I'm optimistic that they'll come to love the interactions communicating with UN Delegates and other UN members will bring.

Speaking of telegrams and proposals, there could be an automatic TG sent to every delegate with the title of the proposal every time a proposal is sent. It would be just like the TG's sent from the Compliance Ministry only that it would read:

"(Insert title of proposal) has been submitted to the U.N. for your consideration. Please look over the proposal and submit your vote."

Speaking of telegrams and proposals, there could be an automatic TG sent to every delegate with the title of the proposal every time a proposal is sent. It would be just like the TG's sent from the Compliance Ministry only that it would read:


Last night there were 11 pages of proposals, with an end date of Friday for the ones submitted latest in the queue. UN Delegates would be getting a ton of telegrams.

Miktivity:

I am still interested in hearing about your views of sovereignty.
Please take a moment to explain them here, or send me a telegram.

oops... wrong thread

Miktivity:

I am still interested in hearing about your views of sovereignty.
Please take a moment to explain them here, or send me a telegram.

Sovereignty like so many other concepts is slightly different in practice and reality than it exists in language usage (i.e. the dictionary definition).

According to most dictionaries, sovereignty is essentially a state of autonomy and freedom from a controlling influence.

The difference between the reality of sovereignty in our real NationStates world and your standard English definition is the word “controlling”. Just as no human can be completely removed or isolated from the rest of the human race, and hence is always subject to indirect influence from other humans, nations are no different.

Here is a single example: Seismic Building Codes vs. Wind Building Codes

The Council of Applied and Theoretical Sciences decides that the building codes in the CCSM may be vulnerable to extreme seismic events, and thus the Council convenes a new conference to update the CCSM Building Codes. Does this influence the people of the Whited Fields?

Most of us would say no. This is an internal issue; seismic codes are designed to protect the people whom use them.

But what if the CCSM also had another law that said that any construction firm having an office in the CCSM must apply equal or higher building standards while working outside of the CCSM? And what if the Whited Fields hired Stark International to build a hospital complex, and instead of provided a hospital complex to meet the needs of your society, Stark International took longer to build the project because it was essentially over designing the facility?

You and others might say that, “So we got a better building?” But what if instead of being located in the North Pacific and subject to extreme seismic disturbances your coastal country is more concerned with wind loading. And what if the CCSM building standard does not account for typhoon strength wind loads, and although our law was such that higher standards should be applied, who is to say that the CCSM building code is better or worse than the Whited Fields code? Stark International would have a say obviously. My country would have a say. As would yours.

And a dialog would begin. But the key … the cause of a re-evaluation of your building code was not your government’s choice. It was an action that began because of an innocent decision in the CCSM. My government has influenced yours.

Some nations would say that sovereignty means you can never influence others. That is wrong. The concept is an ideal. Something that can never be completely true, but even in its common usage should focus on the intent and “controlling” aspect.

UN resolutions are designed to ease international conflicts that naturally arise when the secondary influence two or more societies exert on one-another is significant. In order to reduce these conflicts, the UN itself is going to exert its own influence on all members. This idea is the basis of the UN, which has voluntary membership. (OOC: This argument holds equally for NationStates and our real world.)

You know . . every time one of these serious discussions happens, I always show up too late to say something before everyone else tackles it. Damn.

But yeah, I agree with a lot of the points fielded. It's just unfortunate that our UN Wish List has so many things that are either changes to the mechanics of the game, or beyond our control. The only thing I would add to the list is a resolution that expressly provides the UN with an operating budget. I've already gone off on a funding rant in another thread, but I get so tired of people saying "wah wah wah taxes" that having a serious, referenceable piece of legislation would allow us to circumvent the funding debate all together, and put us a step ahead of people who say "it costs too much, go home."

Maybe we could include a clause that puts the full brunt of funding on UN sheep nations who vote yes for everything without reading it?

One thing I have a gripe against is the endorsement system. It is un-democratic in some respects. I and my opponeney have the same number of endorsements, but my opponenet remains delegate, because of getting there first. And we have most of the same nations endorsing us. I would rather that nations choose their delegates via a poll on the Regional HQ. And after a term of say 2 weeks or so, the poll is brought out again, and the delegate voted out, or for another term. And we could just get rid of the thing where you have to have two endorsements to submit a proposal. It is child'd play to do so, and that rule seems to serve no purpose now.

One thing I have a gripe against is the endorsement system. It is un-democratic in some respects. I and my opponeney have the same number of endorsements, but my opponenet remains delegate, because of getting there first. And we have most of the same nations endorsing us. I would rather that nations choose their delegates via a poll on the Regional HQ. And after a term of say 2 weeks or so, the poll is brought out again, and the delegate voted out, or for another term. And we could just get rid of the thing where you have to have two endorsements to submit a proposal. It is child'd play to do so, and that rule seems to serve no purpose now.

NationStates is about two concepts:

- Censorship
- Squatting Rights

I hate to say it, but if you've been in the middle of a invasion / region crash, you'd quickly learn that not only is that all it takes (that and lots of free on-line time or use of scripts to collect information on other players computer usage and game stats), but *some* of the moderation team actually likes this aspect of the game.

The UN is just a fluffy show piece put off to the side to distract players like us. But if invasions are overused, then even a fluffy happy UN can put the breakers on both censorship and squatting rights.

In any event, there are regions (like my own) that are built around the idea that the UN Delegate position will be voted upon regularly and changed. This idea can be enforced by a regional founder whom feels that flaws in the game code *should* be overcome by limiting regional censorship (kick/ban features) and booting squatters.

In any event, you *could* move to a new region. Mine, International Democratic Union, is still setting up our rules, but we are thinking UN Delegates might rotate on a lunar cycle (calendar months have unequal days, lunar cycles do not).

That said, being a UN Delegate is a lot of work. Some UN Delegates rise to the task, and include a few of the members here. Others don't. Personally, I'd like to try it, but I'm glad I'm not, because then I'd have to be *shivering* "NICE" *shivering*. ;)

Voting also occurs in my region of the young world, although the delagates rarly can handle it and the founder steps in to clean up.

What my idea was to create something other than the top 10 list that the UN puts out to make a nation feel like it is accomplishing something. Bare minumum, let the UN compiling show world's largest countries, world's highest endorsed countries, or worlds largest regions.

Maybe someone should create an offsite UN so that they would not be bound by game rules.

Last night there were 11 pages of proposals, with an end date of Friday for the ones submitted latest in the queue. UN Delegates would be getting a ton of telegrams.

Yeah, but it's the Delegate's job to look over every proposal for consideration...plus Delegates could have a seperate mailbox just for this.

Hey, they WANTED the job - let them suffer the agonies as well as enjoy the benefits.

Yeah, but it's the Delegate's job to look over every proposal for consideration...plus Delegates could have a seperate mailbox just for this.

The last two points are right: UN Delegates want the job, otherwise they'd leave, so it is true, they should do their jobs (and some do a wonderful job).

But this idea I really like. It would be a mailbox they could avoid, but they could use to delete the messages after they've looked at proposals.

Never having been a UN Delegate I don't know what the current interface is like, so maybe something similar is already in place.

As a Delegate (recently regained) myself, there is no such mailbox...and I don't get notification at all when a new proposal comes. I just have the regular TG box, which gets filled from time to time from people looking for endorsements.

Never having been a UN Delegate I don't know what the current interface is like, so maybe something similar is already in place.
It's exactly the same as a non-delegate, the only difference is when you look at the proposal list you see a little "approve" button under it. And if you're in the habit of approving proposals regularly, you get a lot of spam from resolution authors.

The delegate position has a lot more significance than resolution voting and proposal approving. Whether we like it or not, that's that. And telegrams alerting delegates of every proposal would be a bit much even to the most dedicated delegate, I'm thinking.

I think that the idea of a Secretary-General elected by the UN nation, able to mass IM all the delegates of important proposals, would be a good idea.

I think that the idea of a Secretary-General elected by the UN nation, able to mass IM all the delegates of important proposals, would be a good idea.

And who decides what proposals are 'important'? ;)

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It is in my not so very humble opinion that the vast majority of proposals are not worth the cost of moving the binary information that makes up the text that appears on my screen...

I grant an extremely small minority of proposals endorsements. Even then, only about half of those really deserve to pass as bills of law, due to the need to truly propose an *action* to resolve a problem.

As it is, I occasionally will browse the list of proposals, but will often ignore most. Sometimes if one catches my eye that needs to be proofed I'll contact the author and encourage him/her to post on the NS UN Forums. I find it disrespectful to post a proposal without having it proofed for at least 1 week in this forum.

g.e.
Speaker for tFPotJW
and
Delegate to the DU

The problem in my opinion is their are 3 catagories of UN delegates
1) Delegates who regularly read proposals and endorse those they like. Promotional telegrams are unnecesary to them cause they were going to look at the proposal anyway.
2) Delegates who might look at proposals, but will look at proposals if telegramed. Promotional telegrams are often neccesary to get them to look at proposals.
3) Delegates who do not look at the proposals at all, even if telegramed.

The problem is that it is very difficult to reach quorum by only relying on the 1st group. You almost have to advertise/spam to get the 2nd groups attention so your proposal can reach quorum. This spamming is annoying to those in the 1st catagory, but their is not much you can do about it.

And telegrams alerting delegates of every proposal would be a bit much even to the most dedicated delegate, I'm thinking.

Maybe, maybe not...it wouldn't take too much time for a delegate to look at the inbox and search for the proposal to look at it. Besides, you can tell by some of their titles that they're just not worth looking at.

I'm one of those delegates who is a big fan of a fully engaging and active democratic process. I involve those who promote their issues on the forums, and I have absolutely no problem with telegrams that are informative. Relevant information would be background on proposal text, proposal text itself, and/or a link to that proposal. (Link is the most useful and important.)

Also a link to forum where the proposal has been proofed and errors ripped apart would be useful too. I don't like the idea of imperfect proposals. Unless proposal is proofed, it is going to inevitably be marginally passable. Problem is that we have too many chaff proposals. People throwing them up willy-nily w/out any real effort. These proposals don't get endorsed for good reasons. They shouldn't be. I still think that too many chaff proposals are already passed. In my not so humble opinion, it should be *more* difficult not less difficult to pass a proposal.

You know what would be a good idea? We have the leader name directory, and the region directory, but wouyld be even more useful, would be if we had an active delegate directory, to keep track of the delegates that are active in the UN, and those who are willing to get telegrams about proposals.

We had one. Either Goobergunchia or Qaaolchoura made it... can't remember which. It evidently got lost in the move. It hadn't been updated in forever either...

Either Goobergunchia or Qaaolchoura made it... can't remember which. It hadn't been updated in forever either...
Qaaolchoura. Last time I tried to use it was pre-move, maybe January or February. Half the 'active delegates' had died even then.

This game is too large dynamic to maintain a reliable directory. Nice idea, but impractical.

I just wish the people who make this game would give us morw to work with.

Hey, they WANTED the job - let them suffer the agonies as well as enjoy the benefits.

You say "wanted," most of us say "elected."

Nice to see you back, Fris.

The move to Jolt appears to have had a big effect on participation in the UN. The time spent in limbo between servers coupled with the various problems with Jolt itself seems to have dissuaded large numbers of nations from engaging interacting with the UN. Mikitivity mentioned that he'd like to see more of the established nations playing active roles in this forum; I agree, this would be a great boon to the UN. However, I feel that those who stick with the game generally find themselves increasingly concerned with regional politics. With a few notable exceptions (Mikitivity and the Order of Valiant States region), there's a familiar drop-off in participation with time.

Speaking from experience, it feels like the UN suffers from a surfeit of debate on certain issues such as sovereignty and national and international standing. The continuing influx of new nations leads to the same points being addressed over and over again. The combination of this, Jolt and the seductive delights of my region have led to my much reduced involvement in the UN these days.

Then again, East Hackney just got elected UN Delegate for the ACA. As some of you may be aware, Ecopoeia and EH have some history, especially in some of the Strangers' Bar's more, um, raucous episodes. Perhaps this is the spur our two nations need...

the Order of Valiant States region
Thanks.

The problem with regions such as the order is that with a high concentration of UN forum regulars there is only one delegate.

If we were in separate regions we would be able to petition our delegates and end up with more endorsements.

But we do have fun. Three cheers for Trok!

Lady Desdemona of Merwell
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Spreading ourselves out doesn't seem like an effective solution unless we could guarantee ourselves delegate positions. Once upon a time I thought it would be worthwhile for Sophista to seek the delegate position in the East Pacific, but those power structures are already set, and insurmountable without invading, which I refuse to participate in. Similar hurdles exist in other regions.

The delegate position has a lot more significance than resolution voting and proposal approving. Whether we like it or not, that's that. And telegrams alerting delegates of every proposal would be a bit much even to the most dedicated delegate, I'm thinking.

I agree with this.

How do you feel it would be if in say NS2 that the UN Delegates could filter the proposal lists based on resolution categories, authors, and number of endorsements already given?

I find it a bit annoying to read through all of the proposals, only because it just bugs me personally when I see repeats or proposals clearly in violation. But that of course is a personal issue, and I'll gladly live with it on the understanding that my own proposals most certainly have been known to annoy others. ;)

There is another way to better provide feedback.

If you are using MS Internet Explorer, JOLT will allow you to "rate" every single thread. By rating discussions you might help encourage others to particpate in or avoid threads.

Bit of a double-edged sword. Pmight just savage threads for less than worthy reasons.

If they would simply take that wait in between sending each telegram out, telegramming delegates would not take so long. One of the problems is how there are so many delegates who would approve your proposal, if you could simply get them to know about it.

Bit of a double-edged sword. Pmight just savage threads for less than worthy reasons.

Which is why I'll point this out, but don't think it should be added to a FAQ ... then again, the types of dorks that would just sink threads out of spite or ignorance, aren't likely to even read FAQs. God already gave them all the answers. :rollseyes:

How do you feel it would be if in say NS2 that the UN Delegates could filter the proposal lists based on resolution categories, authors, and number of endorsements already given?
Aye, that would be cool, but knowing the kind of database NS is coded in, I doubt this would be easily programmable even in NS2.