NationStates Jolt Archive

The following idea is just a thought, I'm not even sure if it's possible, but tell me what you think.
(This is not a UN law proposal, it's just an idea for making the UN work better)

To prevent the massive numbers of non-active UN members who use the UN as a status symbol, or as a means of reigon crashing only, I propose that if the nation does not vote in the last 3 consecutive proposals, it is booted out of the UN. However, I do realize that sometimes you may not want to vote on a proposal, so I suggest an abstain option be added. If the abstain idea is not able to be coded in, because it may cause too much work, I suggest the number of proposals that you can not vote in consecutively should be raised. Also, an exception should be made for accounts on vacation mode.

This would most likely trim down the UN to those somewhat serious about it's effects.

To prevent the massive numbers of non-active UN members who use the UN as a status symbol, or as a means of reigon crashing only
There's nothing wrong with using the UN to region invade/defend, in fact that's much more enjoyable than sitting around debating silly resolutions; you should try it sometime.

Anyway, a suggestion like this should go in Technical. And I'd be against it. I find most resolutions not worth bothering about.

I have no problem with people using the UN to invade a region, I do have a problem with nations only joining so that they can invade a reigon.

I loathe the thought of a community based on meaningless harassment. Region invading is no more complicated than clicking a few boxes with your friends and giggling amongst yourselves. The fact that you'd rather do that than contribute to the plethora of debates on pertinent intenrational issues speaks volumes on your maturity and intelligence.

As much as I'd like to see nations like Unfree People removed of their ability to pander empty votes and make progress in this game even more difficult by adding delegates who do nothing, the measures propsed by Epopolis won't do anything to stop that. Plenty of non-active nations vote, they just do it without any kind of thought or consideration to the issue at hand. If you indeed want to weed out that kind of nation, you'll need to find a way to tie voting and membership to actual participation in the forums. As we've seen, they aren't to keen on actually talking, just wasting bandwidth.

I loathe the thought of a community based on meaningless harassment. Region invading is no more complicated than clicking a few boxes with your friends and giggling amongst yourselves. The fact that you'd rather do that than contribute to the plethora of debates on pertinent intenrational issues speaks volumes on your maturity and intelligence.
:rolleyes: Thank you for displaying your intolerance and close mindedness.

Regional politics has a lot more to do than a group of 13 year old invaders congratulating themselves on taking over an inactive region. It can be really fascinating and requires skill to suceed on many levels. That we need UN status to participate in this is an unfortanate side effect - but please, don't let us ruin your wonderful debates. I participate in this forum, so obviously, I care a little bit about what goes on in this side of the UN.

Regional politics has a lot more to do than a group of 13 year old invaders congratulating themselves on taking over an inactive region. It can be really fascinating and requires skill to suceed on many levels.

First, I'm trying to think of a justifible reason to region crash other than as "retribution" for another nations moto or political stance. With that in mind, it comes off as aggression ... no matter how fascinating it might be.

Second, sometimes stereotypes are grounded in some truth. I've met very few region crashers who really seem to agree with the idea of a UN, but join it in order to invade. It is for this reason that there is anger directed from active UN members towards nations that defend the activity.

In other words, many of us are not running around hunting for regions to invade, but there are in fact invader states that are not participating in the UN debates and discussions that *are* voting against UN resolutions. Most notable would be Francos Spain. In May / June he voted no, carrying many negative votes, on some issues without ever posting a region here or on the Pacific's off-site forum. I know this, because I asked him to participate in the UN more while he was invading the North Pacific and he pointed me to the exact location of his regions UN debates. There were a few debates there, but on other issues there weren't. He claimed he was representing the regional will, but I had actually communicated with a few nations that I recall were in various feeders, including his Pacific, whom said that they and their friends liked and supported my resolution_s_. There was a mismatch in my mind ... in that newbie UN members were telegramming me with compliaments, and yet their UN Delegates were claiming to vote against measures based on popular support. It could be true, but it begs the question of why would a nation telegram an author compliamenting them but not telegram their UN Delegate, when their UN Delegate would lead that same author to believe that there was "overwhelming" and "documented" opposition to his / her resolution?

I honestly feel it would be nice if the "mechanics" used for region crashing were independent of the UN. The UN can *not* pass so much as a statement condemning region crashing, much less a game mechanics issue, and yet invaders have the tools of censorship and squatters rights at their disposal for changing UN votes without ever engaging in a single debate / discussion.

It is a mismatch, and something that I would imagine that a player whom prides him or herself in the skills necessary to use an eject / ban function would appreciate and at the very least find value in spending some of the time spent in endorsement counting and region hoping towards actually engaging in dialogs from time to time.

First, I'm trying to think of a justifible reason to region crash other than as "retribution" for another nations moto or political stance. With that in mind, it comes off as aggression ... no matter how fascinating it might be. I am not an invader; I can't justify their actions here. I will say, though, that while some invader groups are purile and irritating, not all of them are. The practice of invading creates a fascinating dynamic in the game which keeps a huge chunk of players interested in NS.

Most notable would be Francos Spain. In May / June he voted no, carrying many negative votes, on some issues without ever posting a region here or on the Pacific's off-site forum. I know this, because I asked him to participate in the UN more while he was invading the North Pacific and he pointed me to the exact location of his regions UN debates. There were a few debates there, but on other issues there weren't. He claimed he was representing the regional will, but I had actually communicated with a few nations that I recall were in various feeders, including his Pacific, whom said that they and their friends liked and supported my resolution_s_. Ah, funny you should use that example. I was endorsing Franco for most of that year and I can personally assure you that those of us who cared telegrammed him asking him to vote one way or another on the resolutions. Some debate carried over to the offsite forums, but usually it was kept to telegrams. And as long as I can remember, I asked him to vote against the resolutions - and yes, I did have reasons why. He usually agreed with me on them.

There was a mismatch in my mind ... in that newbie UN members were telegramming me with compliaments, and yet their UN Delegates were claiming to vote against measures based on popular support. It could be true, but it begs the question of why would a nation telegram an author compliamenting them but not telegram their UN Delegate, when their UN Delegate would lead that same author to believe that there was "overwhelming" and "documented" opposition to his / her resolution? I was never telegrammed by a resolutions author (until I became a UN delegate somewhere), and so I think that we're both talking about small portions of the NS population which don't overlap.

I honestly feel it would be nice if the "mechanics" used for region crashing were independent of the UN. The UN can *not* pass so much as a statement condemning region crashing, much less a game mechanics issue, and yet invaders have the tools of censorship and squatters rights at their disposal for changing UN votes without ever engaging in a single debate / discussion. Here I can't disagree. The resolution side of the UN annoyed me for the longest time, and while I'm more active in it now, I know there are still plenty of Gameplayers out there who despise it.

But it's what we've been given, and I strongly object to the idea that our way of playing the game is inferior to yours, and we should be punished for it.

But it's what we've been given, and I strongly object to the idea that our way of playing the game is inferior to yours, and we should be punished for it.

The debate has never been about inferiority, or at least it shouldn't. I harbor my own opinions on the issue, obviously, but no matter what I feel, people are going to want to crash and invade anyway. The crux of my argument lies in the fact that the two systems overlap, and the existance of invaders and the way they go about their games directly inteferes with our own.

In a perfect world, the two systems would be seperate. Instead of the UN delegate having what powers they do, hold a different set of elections for region president or whatever you want to call it. The UN people could happily go about their business without having to stay up for three days straight to get enough votes for their proposals, and the crashes could invade all day long without hearing from people like me.

Ah, funny you should use that example. I was endorsing Franco for most of that year and I can personally assure you that those of us who cared telegrammed him asking him to vote one way or another on the resolutions. Some debate carried over to the offsite forums, but usually it was kept to telegrams. And as long as I can remember, I asked him to vote against the resolutions - and yes, I did have reasons why. He usually agreed with me on them.


He is the perfect example.

Because if you and players like Francos wish to avoid the stigma of being anti-UN, then you should come here in articulate your feelings.

Take my one of my resolutions:

- Tracking Near Earth Objects

He: (1) claimed there were debates on his forum (and there weren't at the time) and (2) that overwhelming people agreed it was terrible. I happen to think it was well written. But at first I figured, why the hell not play his game, so I asked him to defend his assertion that __my__ resolutions were among some of the worst [he] has seen.

Do you feel that was either called for or politically wise?

I've yet to see him vote in favour of a UN resolution, and being interested in feeling out friendly UN delegates and unfriendly UN delegates I look for these things. There is a reason I moved from the North Pacific to the East Pacific under Loop after being banned by Great Bight (who ironically has always supported my resolutions). Loop will endorse proposals and will vote the will of the East Pacific, *and* have a poll on his forum to back up his voting decisions.

My point is, if you want to claim you don't like UN resolutions, perhaps you could in a few paragraphs (which you are doing here) defend your viewpoints.

While he may be getting tons of telegrams from his nations asking him to vote against everything ... if he wants to keep everything on the board and level, having an off-site forum to point to would help. I looked there after my resolution ended, there was no debate (despite him claiming there was).

After he lied to me (claiming the issue was on the forum) and having heard dissenting views from his region, I'm not inclined to believe that he supports the UN *nor* that he can defend his positions on some of the resolutions that he has voted no on. While you may write this off as sour grapes, what I'm ultimately asking for is that players that "claim" to have an interest in the UN show up here and participate in the process.

This thread is about making the UN better. It can't do that via censorship and hiding. And I've yet to see Francos stop into this forum since Feb. 2004. Has he? Perhaps as a puppet?

But it's what we've been given, and I strongly object to the idea that our way of playing the game is inferior to yours, and we should be punished for it.

You've not explained to me why or how invaders choose to invade?

Is it because they hate a regions motto? Is it at random? Is it because they are bored? Because pardon my "french" but it is nothing better than shit stirring, trolling, and/or flame baiting.

In the real world do people run into other people's homes and kick them out? Sure they do. But why? The answer is because usually they want something from somebody else. But most people would agree that the behavior is unacceptable.

Nations invade each other as well. Though if memory serves the last country to start a war with another: the US invasion of Iraq, was met with massive world-wide protests. In the same light, the UN *should* be able to basically call players that resort to invasions "dork" heads, because frankly that is all they are.

Shit stirring and flame baiting ... region crashing is just an institutionalized form of that. And yes, on the 'net you'll find that most people agree: watching flame wars are fun. It is entertainment up and til the point that it becomes UNWANTED on the other end.

Like Sophista pointed out, the two are interwinded. Thus I do feel it is appropriate for one mechanism that is controlled by the other to have a chance to issue a "verbal" punishment of the first. If the region crashing was by welcomed, I wouldn't mind it. And I agree, many defenders *LIVE* for it.

If the two remain interwinded, the UN should be able to correct / adjust the results after the fact. In other words, the two should work back and forth. Thus if invaders make too many enemies, perhaps they should fear that they could have something changed by an "international peacekeeping" force.


And perhaps good invaders do exist, because Loop is again a model delegate (one of many), and did get to his position via region crashing. But at the same time, he plays a balanced game. He roleplays, he invades / defends, he displays an interest in the UN, heck he has written several daily issues -- all around the guy is everywhere in this game. But in Loops case, I'm gonna guess his decision to play the invasion game wasn't too boot somebody out, but to collect power and influence for his nation.

Maybe that is really what this is about ... it isn't that region crashing is so bad, but that all too often it is the 13-year brat stereotype that is associated with it.

The resolution side of the UN annoyed me for the longest time, and while I'm more active in it now, I know there are still plenty of Gameplayers out there who despise it.

I hate to butt in, but we are talking about a model UN coded within the confines of a political simulation game. Of course it's not everyone's cup of tea.

How does taking over geographic regions of Earth and booting individual nations out of that geographic region in any way reflect what the UN does?

Don't get me wrong, invasions and power politics have a place in a political sim, but it should be disassociated from the UN. The UN, as an international cooperative union, shouldn't provide the vehicle to do such things.

The following idea is just a thought, I'm not even sure if it's possible, but tell me what you think.
(This is not a UN law proposal, it's just an idea for making the UN work better)
GAME MECH - ... Oh. Okay. ;)

To prevent the massive numbers of non-active UN members who use the UN as a status symbol, or as a means of reigon crashing only,Yes, this tends to be a bit of a problem, let alone when your lucky to get even 1/3 of " active " members showing up and voting.

I can't really much think of an analogy for it, but certainly its bad enough alone when it comes to delegates who should at least be making even a token gesture at going through the endorsing of proposals procedure, its like watching a line of broken down family sedans parking in the ambulance bay of a major hospital simply to see if they can buy ice-cream ... relating to their inflation of that + 6% endorse figure ...

I propose that if the nation does not vote in the last 3 consecutive proposals, it is booted out of the UN. However, I do realize that sometimes you may not want to vote on a proposal, so I suggest an abstain option be added.Well ... I'd be tempted to make it two, and that you can only abstain if your on vacation mode, and when in vacation mode, you cannot vote on anything and your if your a delegate you cease to be considered a number to raise that + 6% figure ...

If the abstain idea is not able to be coded in, because it may cause too much work, I suggest the number of proposals that you can not vote in consecutively should be raised. Also, an exception should be made for accounts on vacation mode.I would think the number of proposals you should allowed not to vote in should be zero, personally, as really, when it comes down to yes or no, your theoretically a leader of a nation, and should be getting used to making these decisions, if anything, U.N. resolution should be big, very well written national issues which you cannot dismiss, :)

This would most likely trim down the UN to those somewhat serious about it's effects.Probably a dream, but don't wake me up ... could we have more people writing half decent resolutions too ? ;)

I'm sure Mikitivity and a few others might be getting tired by now, and the big bag of flowery prose and cutting remarks we see Sophista carry must not be completely infinite in content ... :D

There's nothing wrong with using the UN to region invade/defend, in fact that's much more enjoyable than sitting around debating silly resolutions; you should try it sometime.I felt it best to remain diplomatic on this one. so,

" ... "
I have no problem with people using the UN to invade a region, I do have a problem with nations only joining so that they can invade a reigon.Ditto, my friend, ditto.

I loathe the thought of a community based on meaningless harassment. Region invading is no more complicated than clicking a few boxes with your friends and giggling amongst yourselves. The fact that you'd rather do that than contribute to the plethora of debates on pertinent intenrational issues speaks volumes on your maturity and intelligence.

As much as I'd like to see nations like Unfree People removed of their ability to pander empty votes and make progress in this game even more difficult by adding delegates who do nothing, the measures propsed by Epopolis won't do anything to stop that. Plenty of non-active nations vote, they just do it without any kind of thought or consideration to the issue at hand. If you indeed want to weed out that kind of nation, you'll need to find a way to tie voting and membership to actual participation in the forums. As we've seen, they aren't to keen on actually talking, just wasting bandwidth.* The Rep of Komokom goes down on one knee and starts searching through jacket pockets for ring ...

Thank you for displaying your intolerance and close mindedness.As Jen says, " And yet ... "

in fact that's much more enjoyable than sitting around debating silly resolutions; you should try it sometime.
Thank you, such a bright example of tolerance and an open mind to us all you most certainly are.

Regional politics has a lot more to do than a group of 13 year old invaders congratulating themselves on taking over an inactive region. Yeah, first they have to find an inactive region, but heck knows, they do seem to have enough trouble going that. No, wait, the North Pacific was inactive, as I remember ...

No, really, in all serious-ness they need to understand time zones too, to co-ordinate their attacks of liberation ...

It can be really fascinating and requires skill to suceed on many levels.Unlike all those silly debates we get into on international law and society, etc, etc, etc. We really should get about to doing away with all that ... migght slow down the band-width making it harder to pull of simultaneous invasion strikes or something ...

That we need UN status to participate in this is an unfortanate side effectYour telling us ?

- but please, don't let us ruin your wonderful debates. Oh, thats nice of you ! :D

* But he is being sarcastic, isn't he ...

I participate in this forum, so obviously, I care a little bit about what goes on in this side of the UN." And yet ... "

in fact that's much more enjoyable than sitting around debating silly resolutions; you should try it sometime. Now, you see, its that kind of positive player attitude that will do wonders for us all here.

At this point, as I read on, I have to pretty much agree with Mikitivity and Sophista, and I think XG really sums it up quite well. That said, I'm off to write one of those silly little proposals, tragic I know, I should be out invading like a growing boy should do at my age ... :rolleyes:

To solve the problem of the UN and region crashing overlapping, I agree with others here that they should be seperated. A region should have to leaders, a Region leader, and a UN delegate. The region leader is elected, endorsed, whatever from among all the nations (any individual person should only get 1 vote), the delegate should be elected only from the UN members of a region.

and the big bag of flowery prose and cutting remarks we see Sophista carry must not be completely infinite in content

You'd be surprised. It's a big bag.

I tend to lock myself in the UN forum for fear of being trampled by the people with vast experience in Moderation or Technical. Flowery prose only works in the UN forum, you know? Can any of you that venture forth into those areas tell me if the idea of seperate election systems for regional leaders (invaders) and UN delegates (not invaders) has been raised before? Or how receptive the admins would be to such an idea?

In a perfect world, the two systems would be seperate. Instead of the UN delegate having what powers they do, hold a different set of elections for region president or whatever you want to call it. The UN people could happily go about their business without having to stay up for three days straight to get enough votes for their proposals, and the crashes could invade all day long without hearing from people like me.Well, I think I agree with you there. Most of the invading/defending element in the game would be only too happy to dispense with the annoying telegrams from the UN or from UN members wishing support for a resolution/proposal. Like I said, the reason I objected so strongly to the first post in this thread is that it condemns our way of playing the game without offering us an alternative. I hold out no hope that the system will ever be changed - something like this has been proposed countless times - but I still think it's necessary to speak up for the gameplay element of the UN.

Because if you and players like Francos wish to avoid the stigma of being anti-UN, then you should come here in articulate your feelings. Well, we are anti-UN. Really, that's why I would always come up with reasons to vote against proposals. We do participate in debate to a limited extent, most of the time.

He: (1) claimed there were debates on his forum (and there weren't at the time) and (2) that overwhelming people agreed it was terrible. I happen to think it was well written. But at first I figured, why the hell not play his game, so I asked him to defend his assertion that __my__ resolutions were among some of the worst [he] has seen.
I remember this resolution. I didn't like it because a) it presumed that every nation was based on this earth, and had modern tech, which (although I don't RP much) is false in the case of most of my puppets. And b) the entire resolution is one huge run on sentence which makes it difficult to read and (no offense) at first glance it looks like the minimal of care was taken to write it.

I've yet to see him vote in favour of a UN resolution, This isn't going to win you over to his case, but... he voted for that 'hippos' resolution all that time ago. :D

Loop will endorse proposals and will vote the will of the East Pacific, *and* have a poll on his forum to back up his voting decisions. Sometimes. Sometimes he doesn't. He didn't used to have a poll up and when I would telegram him, he'd give me some BS answer about voting his way and not the region's way. Maybe he's changed since then, but loop is hardly my idea of the ideal UN delegate.

This thread is about making the UN better. It can't do that via censorship and hiding. And I've yet to see Francos stop into this forum since Feb. 2004. Has he? Perhaps as a puppet?Nah, most gameplayers tend to avoid this forum like the plague. It does tend to be full of n00bs who can't hold a good debate, or proposals that are so obviously worthless they aren't worth taking the time to reply to, or threads like this claiming invading ought to be done away with.

You've not explained to me why or how invaders choose to invade?
...

Maybe that is really what this is about ... it isn't that region crashing is so bad, but that all too often it is the 13-year brat stereotype that is associated with it.I'm not an invader and I can't presume to know - but I've known several invader groups and they don't all conform to your stereotype. They do it for something to do in this game, it's entertainment much like you get from debating proposals in here. I don't wish to piss on your way of playing again, but personally I'd find invading more interesting - I definitely find defending more interesting. This is my personal opinion and I'm not trying to convert you to it, though.

Komokom- if you aren't going to quote anything from me of substance, is there a point to your post? I am a she btw.

I tend to lock myself in the UN forum for fear of being trampled by the people with vast experience in Moderation or Technical. Flowery prose only works in the UN forum, you know? Can any of you that venture forth into those areas tell me if the idea of seperate election systems for regional leaders (invaders) and UN delegates (not invaders) has been raised before? Or how receptive the admins would be to such an idea?What, trampled by people like me? Perish the thought, my good friend ;)

Oh yes, yes, there's a call to reform the UN about once a month. It doesn't always propose getting rid of the invading element of the game, but it's usually not acted on. I really doubt Max would code something else for invading, and the mods seem reluctant to get rid of it outright. Anyway, this post is too long already and I wouldn't read it if I was debating me. Have fun guys.... I'll leave you alone now.

Feeling the need to but in here.

First Mikivity, I've read (read: I've disected them all the way through) your near earth proposal. Some in the South Pacific glanced too. We thought it didn't do much as was very wordy-though well written.

I have read arguments on this thread that the UN shouldn't be a place for invaders to use to make war on other regions. However, this is how the game was set up. The delegate has the power to vote for the region, eject nations, update the world factbook, and I in non-founder regions clear the boards. In this game the delegate IS the seat of power. Invaders invade for reasons people have been invading for millenia: Power.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with people trying to take over other people's regions. It is real life and I'm glad it's in the game. As is the UN with pontificators such as yourself. I'm glad that part is in the game as well. I think your coming from a biased perspective and believe this game to be a 'model-UN' game whereas it really is its own entity. The UN, IMHO, would never enact laws that would legislate or de-legislate morality on member nations where those issues are in dispute-genocide, slavery, notwithstanding.

However, in this game the UN does. At first, I didn't like it and I still don't but I'm glad it is something we can debate about. Why? Makes the game interesting.

I feel the same about invaders. Without invaders there wouldn't be folks like me, defenders. And there's no better feeling than getting a TG from a deposed delegate, that I've helped reinstate after a successful re-taking of his/her region.

Quite honestly, I doubt as many people would play this game without the war elements. Agreed, some invaders do it in such a way as to grief regions and are duly deleted. However, I like folks like FS-they don't adhere to the Kumbaya Theory of the world. In other words, just because he doesn't play the game you or I may play it, doesn't make it wrong. I find it completely ignorant that you would get on Francos Spain for not debating in his region whether to vote Yay or Nay for such and such resolution.

What gives you the right to say how he should conduct business. Up until a month ago he was the representative of The Pacific. People gave him endorsements to represent and lead the region. He can act as he pleases. If people don't feel like he's doing the job they want-go to his name and click "withdraw your endorsement".

A debate on if his voting record represents the region should be left for an elections campaign not questioning the validity of said votes.

...that's my two cent.

I agree that regional invasion adds quite an interesting dynamic to the game. For alot of players, who don't care to write long draw out posts or roleplay on the forum, it is most probably the only thing that keeps the game exciting. Though I myself am not nor ever have been a regional invader, I still recognize the fun it. Regional wars can be fun. That they aren't sometimes, well, that's life. I think enough features have been added to make it quite tricky to take over another region. You really have to work for it, come up with an intricate plan of action in some cases. It is a fine example of grand strategy, and we'd be taking alot out of the game if we banned it all together.

As for seperating the UN from the process of regional invasion, I must say that I do agree that this is not what the UN should be used for. On the other hand, it is because the UN is set up in the way it is that regional invasion is possible in the first place. If anyone has any propositions as to how we would conduct invasions without using the endorsement engine, I'm all ears. But bear in mind that this would most probably call for a major overhaul of the game engine, and that's most probably not going to happen. And so we wait for NS2... :headbang:

Thank you everybody for your responses. However, I think we need to focus on the original proposal. There are some practicalities that must be considered:

1) Region Crashing/Invading is useful, and fun, and will remain part of the game.
2) The UN Delegate position will most likely not be changed in anyway in the current version of NS.
3) We need to compromise if we are to make any sort of change.

Thank you again, I suggest that we now restate the idea collectively to reach agreement and talk about ways to improve and enact our idea. Arguing the previous points are rather frivoulous.

Refering to your original proposal, I personaly think it is a very good idea. Yes, UN members who do not actively participate in the decision making process of the UN should be removed.
But how would we go about this? Again, it would require adding a feature to the game engine, it would have to happen automatically, as it would be a great feat for a person or even group of people to keep track of the activities of all UN nations.
If you can convince MB to actually add this feature to the currently existing engine, I'm all for it. Soooo....now what?

So ... Now we wait for others to respond with their input.

Unfortunutly, I think that the only way to solve the problem is to seperate control of the region from the delegate to the UN. Cause in real life, you don't have to be part of the UN to engage in power struggles.

:rolleyes: Thank you for displaying your intolerance and close mindedness.

Regional politics has a lot more to do than a group of 13 year old invaders congratulating themselves on taking over an inactive region. It can be really fascinating and requires skill to suceed on many levels. That we need UN status to participate in this is an unfortanate side effect - but please, don't let us ruin your wonderful debates. I participate in this forum, so obviously, I care a little bit about what goes on in this side of the UN.

Yep, you need 14 year olds. Power hungry ones who haven't discovered what kissing is yet. The action requires nothing. It is pointless and useless, a dim and fading method of... wait, is there a point? No, probably not.

But hey, whatever makes it fun for you. Maybe next you can go out and arm wrestle some newborns, won't that be fun? [/sarcasm]

I'm all for splitting out the two parts - Regional Delegate for Regional matters and a UN Delegate, the former being elected by all members of a region, the latter by just members of the UN.

I've still not heard any reason "region crashing" is useful at all, save in the most puerile sense of "gimme!". And what skill? Make a bunch of poppets and storm by numbers. We call that "gang violence" in the States.

And what skill? Make a bunch of poppets and storm by numbers. We call that "gang violence" in the States.
That's called multi-ing, which is illegal, and there are plenty of successful invader groups who act legally. Obviously you didn't take the time to read through all my posts, I'm not going to bother repeating my defense of region crashing.

There are many ways to play this game. Unless yours is illegal it is as valid as any other.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Feeling the need to but in here.

First Mikivity, I've read (read: I've disected them all the way through) your near earth proposal. Some in the South Pacific glanced too. We thought it didn't do much as was very wordy-though well written.


What gives you the right to say how he should conduct business. Up until a month ago he was the representative of The Pacific. People gave him endorsements to represent and lead the region. He can act as he pleases. If people don't feel like he's doing the job they want-go to his name and click "withdraw your endorsement".

A debate on if his voting record represents the region should be left for an elections campaign not questioning the validity of said votes.


First off *no* resolution really does "much". But now I'm curious as to what the "point" of the UN is and think that people who advocate *against* resolutions should actually write one of their own.

Second, my "right" to say how he conducts his business began the minute he claimed to represent the "democratic" will of his region. Francos told me that my proposal was bad and that there was a debate on it on his forum. He lied. That much is clear.

I feel that it really is in the interest of anybody interested in the UN aspect of this game to find out just what people do want out of the UN (not the UN Delegate's ability to eject / ban, but out of the proposal process).

Having debates offsite and never explaining what it is you want or participating in the process is essentially ignoring this aspect of the game. And when you later try to invade a region (the subject of Francos voting record came up after he voted against my resolution and then asked me via one of his spam telegrams for his endorsement in his take over bid of the North Pacific), you should be held accountible for the method you choose to conduct business.

Frankly there are IMHO people who share my opinion that:

1. You shouldn't tell somebody there is a debate on something and point them to it when it isn't there -- a sign of dishonesty.

2. People who claim to be interested in the UN should actually come to the UN forum or telegram the people whom are actively writting proposals and let the world know what they want. Like it or not, only some of us are telepaths.

I remember this resolution. I didn't like it because a) it presumed that every nation was based on this earth, and had modern tech, which (although I don't RP much) is false in the case of most of my puppets. And b) the entire resolution is one huge run on sentence which makes it difficult to read and (no offense) at first glance it looks like the minimal of care was taken to write it.

This isn't going to win you over to his case, but... he voted for that 'hippos' resolution all that time ago.

Real UN resolutions *are* run on sentences, extreme care was in fact taken. I'm sorry, but every time somebody has the "it hurts my brain" argument, I really have ZERO respect for their understanding of what the world outside really looks like.

Please tell me that in the real world you don't vote yet, because if you'd bother to actually read my propositions or political party platforms, they too are "hard to read".

You also wrote that you are anti-UN ... so to be blunt, why they hell are in you it? You can leave you know.

It is ignorant attitudes like yours and this attitude that you'll join the UN to destroy it that really highlight exactly why griefers / invaders are no better than trolls. You play the game just to screw with other people. While you might find it fun, if you made a practice of breaking into other people's homes in real life to foock with them, I think you'd quickly find that most people don't appreciate that kind of behavior.

And *that* is why all of this becomes the rest of our business.

*Appalauds* Thank you! I could try and follow that up with my own rant, but alas, it is morning, I am tired, and it would never compare to yours, Mikitivity! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Anyways, now that we have this point established we should figure out what we will do about it.

However, I think we need to remember these points, without them we can't continue trying to make progress. Let's try and be a little diplomatic people!

1) Region Crashing/Invading is the whole point of playing for some players, and will remain part of the game.
2) The UN Delegate position will most likely not be changed in anyway in the current version of NS.
3) We need to compromise if we are to make any sort of change.

Let's review the original idea, put forward by, yours truly, Epopolis:

The following idea is just a thought, I'm not even sure if it's possible, but tell me what you think.
(This is not a UN law proposal, it's just an idea for making the UN work better)
To prevent the massive numbers of non-active UN members who use the UN as a status symbol, or as a means of reigon crashing only,
I propose that if the nation does not vote in the last 3 consecutive proposals, it is booted out of the UN. However, I do realize that sometimes you may not want to vote on a proposal, so I suggest an abstain option be added.
If the abstain idea is not able to be coded in, because it may cause too much work, I suggest the number of proposals that you can not vote in consecutively should be raised. Also, an exception should be made for accounts on vacation mode. This would most likely trim down the UN to those somewhat serious about it's effects.

Thank you. Oh yes, and if you are looking for a well-written proposal, please review my "Safe Water Access Act" on the forum, now in it's 4th and hopefully final draft.

Is it cold in here, or is it just me?

Anyway, the original idea: I don't think it's a good 'un. It is once in a while a UN member's right to abstain from voting. If a resolution came along three times in a row that you neither agreed with nor disagreed with, or you simply felt they were so poor they didn't warrant your attention, and you were kicked out of the UN as a result... that wouldn't be particularly nice.

It is my policy not to vote on anything unless the members of my nation agree unanimously. As delegate I've only voted twice.

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

Hey, Mikitivity, when did this become so personal? I was enjoying debating with you up until now.

Real UN resolutions *are* run on sentences, extreme care was in fact taken. I'm sorry, but every time somebody has the "it hurts my brain" argument, I really have ZERO respect for their understanding of what the world outside really looks like.Oh kaay... this isn't the real UN, and you honestly will get more support if you make it easier to read and understand. That proposal really didn't look like the author edited it and took the time to make it easy on readers. Whether you did or not, it was the impression I got, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

I apologize if attacking your resolution upset you, but really, you ought to debate with people civilly no matter what they think.

Please tell me that in the real world you don't vote yet, because if you'd bother to actually read my propositions or political party platforms, they too are "hard to read".There is absolutely no call for this kind of attack on me. I follow politics enthusiastically and have been able to vote for a year and a half now.

You also wrote that you are anti-UN ... so to be blunt, why they hell are in you it? You can leave you know. Two words: regional politics. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

You play the game just to screw with other people. This is not true and I am not happy with your attitude either. I seldom come in here and debate resolutions under this nation (because I always have puppets for the UN) but I sure as heck do contribute to most debates, even if it's only on off site forums. I would also like to point out that your resolution passed and you have no business bitching at me because I cast my one measly vote against your resolution that I didn't care for.

Back off and stop attacking me and the way I play this game.

The following idea is just a thought, I'm not even sure if it's possible, but tell me what you think.
(This is not a UN law proposal, it's just an idea for making the UN work better)
To prevent the massive numbers of non-active UN members who use the UN as a status symbol, or as a means of reigon crashing only,
I propose that if the nation does not vote in the last 3 consecutive proposals, it is booted out of the UN. However, I do realize that sometimes you may not want to vote on a proposal, so I suggest an abstain option be added.
If the abstain idea is not able to be coded in, because it may cause too much work, I suggest the number of proposals that you can not vote in consecutively should be raised. Also, an exception should be made for accounts on vacation mode. This would most likely trim down the UN to those somewhat serious about it's effects. This proposal should be started as a separate thread in the Technical forum. You won't get anyone who can change anything to listen to you in the middle of this thread.

This proposal should be started as a separate thread in the Technical forum.

Good point.

I'd also suggest that some of these discussions (which while very interesting to many UN players) might also be appropriate for the NS2 forum.

Many of the things we'd like "coded" into the game really might be better added to a wish list for NS2.

Oh kaay... this isn't the real UN, and you honestly will get more support if you make it easier to read and understand. That proposal really didn't look like the author edited it and took the time to make it easy on readers. Whether you did or not, it was the impression I got, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.


Well, did you read the resolution before NS "reformatted" it?

It is pretty easy to read any real UN styled resolution:


The United Nations

JUSTIFICATION blah blah blah,

ALSO blah blah blah,

AND ALSO blah blah blah,

1. ACTION VERB blah blah blah; and

2. ACTION VERB blah blah blah.


Please, spend 30 minutes visiting some real UN resolutions. You'll quickly find out that by scanning the numbered clauses you can get a pretty good feel for what a resolution does.

As for NS not being "real", which way do you want it? One minute people like you claim that region crashing and anti-UN voting blocs are "real world", but the next that UN resolutions shouldn't be "real".

The way many of us see it is, many people like yourself don't know squat about international politics, especially the real UN, and care not to play this part of the game, but are quick to call things you don't understand stupid.

Though you are right, you probably weren't the only person who had problems reading my resolutions. But I'm not surprised either ... as many NS players are young / inexperienced and know little about real world politics.

I'm more than happy to suggest that there is room for these players as well. The Legalize Prostitution resolutions are prefect for them. The daily issues are as well. But the rest of us shouldn't have to listen to a bunch of 12-years old cry when something based on a real world concept is introduced.

There certainly is room for both in the game. I've even voted for some very poorly structured resolutions, because it was clear some thought was put into the idea / resolution.

Well, did you read the resolution before NS "reformatted" it? Yes, but I'd since forgotten. Thanks for pointing that out.

As for NS not being "real", which way do you want it? One minute people like you claim that region crashing and anti-UN voting blocs are "real world", but the next that UN resolutions shouldn't be "real". Hmm, I never claimed the former, and as for the latter, I didn't say it shouldn't be realistic - just that realism can only goes so far.

I'm more than happy to suggest that there is room for these players as well. The Legalize Prostitution resolutions are prefect for them. The daily issues are as well. But the rest of us shouldn't have to listen to a bunch of 12-years old cry when something based on a real world concept is introduced. Well, I'm not 12 years old, but I do want to see the UN address more general ideas/issues instead of focusing so specifically on something like physics and this particular earth. The fact that you can't propose things like dealing with specific RL places and countries would seem to support my attitude here... not that I'm saying proposals like yours should be illegal, or trying to belittle you for suggesting it - just defending my own opinion.

Well, I'm not 12 years old, but I do want to see the UN address more general ideas/issues instead of focusing so specifically on something like physics and this particular earth. The fact that you can't propose things like dealing with specific RL places and countries would seem to support my attitude here... not that I'm saying proposals like yours should be illegal, or trying to belittle you for suggesting it - just defending my own opinion.

No, I didn't think you are. But based on the fact that you are *not* familiar with real UN formated resolutions and have claimed they are hard to read (which simply isn't true, I'll explain in a second) I am pretty damn convinced you know less about real international politics than you might want others to believe.

OK, about the ease of UN formatted resolutions. Many secretaries (once was one) will tell you that the easy way to read *anything* is to take a highlighter and color the verbs and subject in each __phrase__ or sentence fragment.

Approves needle sharing
Spends money
Restricts forestry
etc.

When constructing something, many teachers advocate starting from either an outline or even first using a brainstorming session. The outline is the first "ordered" step. Sentences or sentence fragments are strung together to further qualify the outlines, but the outlines almost always start as verb / subject pairs.

Now as for "Real Life", actually you are somewhat mistaken about the NS rules about the real world.

If you would search a week back for my post on UN proposals and resolutions, you'll see I've copied Cog's current ruling on that very subject. In short, we can't presume France or South Africa exist. We can't presume that Nelson Mandela or Junichiro Koizumi exist. We can't presume that Coca Cola or Coors Brewing Company exist.

We can presume that the sun and moon exist. We can presume that there are oceans that behave exactly like your oceans exist. We can presume that there are illegal drugs very similar to say cocaine and heorine that exist (actually we can presume these drugs themselves exist) and that they are problems our individual nations must deal with.

I think if we have oceans, a moon, and cocaine, that it is by no means that far of a leap to presume that spotted frogs or asteroids are both things our governments might be interested in. The frogs might hold the key to curing cancer and the asteroids might one day provide raw materials.

While it is true that players will claim they are a "Zombie" nation, if we sit around and start voting no on resolutions that talk about "asteroids" and sharing information about them, what is to then prevent the player who claims to come from Mars to justify voting against *every* Social Justice resolution saying, "Humans do not exist on Mars. Therefore a resolution to provide basic welfare is illogical."

OK, they might do that ... but what if the player saying that, isn't claiming to be playing on Mars but instead is saying, "Your resolution is too long for my 'Special Needs' brain and I think that on the off chance that a single nation in this game is claiming to be a bunch of robots in another galaxy really means it is inappropriate."

Sounds pretty fooking unreasonable to me. Doesn't it to you?

In fact, I'd say those people are really not here to play the UN game, but just hunting for excuses to avoid anything.

So I'll ask this again:

1) Have you ever seriously considered submitting your own proposal?
2) What do you think the point of the UN is -- besides to provide a means to screw with other players by banning / ejecting them during region crashing?

A debate on asteroids really isn't about physics ... read the resolution, it was about *communication* and sharing information. It could easily have been a free trade resolution. And worst case, it lasts a week before the next tired old "Save the Forests" debate restarts or whatever the "Social Justice" cause of the week happens to be.

No, I didn't think you are. But based on the fact that you are *not* familiar with real UN formated resolutions and have claimed they are hard to read (which simply isn't true, I'll explain in a second) I am pretty damn convinced you know less about real international politics than you might want others to believe. .............

Quote me trying to claim I know everything about international politics.

Now as for "Real Life", actually you are somewhat mistaken about the NS rules about the real world. I did not claim NS rules were against your resolution. I said my preference was. It's just that my preference dictates my individual vote, which obviously you had no reason to care about (Votes For: 12351 / Votes Against: 3273).

what is to then prevent the player who claims to come from Mars to justify voting against *every* Social Justice resolution saying, "Humans do not exist on Mars. Therefore a resolution to provide basic welfare is illogical." Nothing, In fact I bet it's happened at some point. It wouldn't be any stupider than a lot of the reasons you hear here.

1) Have you ever seriously considered submitting your own proposal? I've submitted proposals, only I've been too lazy to telegram delegates asking them to approve them and they died buried in the queue somewhere.
2) What do you think the point of the UN is -- besides to provide a means to screw with other players by banning / ejecting them during region crashing? The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the UN Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.Yet you do realize that I've agreed with you that the systems should be seperate?

A debate on asteroids really isn't about physics ... read the resolution, it was about *communication* and sharing information. It could easily have been a free trade resolution. And worst case, it lasts a week before the next tired old "Save the Forests" debate restarts or whatever the "Social Justice" cause of the week happens to be.I will give you that, it is an interesting and different idea. However, you aren't going to get me to change my vote simply because it's an original resolution - painting all capital buildings red is an original idea. But it would probably get deleted as a resolution.

Anyway, this argument is getting drawn out into absurdity. It's off topic and your proposal already passed anyway.

I've submitted proposals, only I've been too lazy to telegram delegates asking them to approve them and they died buried in the queue somewhere.
Yet you do realize that I've agreed with you that the systems should be seperate?

I will give you that, it is an interesting and different idea. However, you aren't going to get me to change my vote simply because it's an original resolution - painting all capital buildings red is an original idea. But it would probably get deleted as a resolution.

Anyway, this argument is getting drawn out into absurdity. It's off topic and your proposal already passed anyway.

I was unaware that you also support the idea of finding a way to minizime the impacts the UN has on invaders and the impacts invaders have on the UN.

The point of the argument isn't to have somebody change his vote. As you've pointed out, I already won that vote. Instead it is to move future debates on resolutions away from nitpicking on "Dude, this resoluion is like hard to read ... I'm gonna vote no on it" to "Hmmm, I don't completely understand this, so here is what I've got out of your resolution. If this is TRUE, I'll vote no."

I personally detest when people / nations vote out of complete ingorance, especially when the means to get your questions answered is so easy. In fact, it is a telegram or forum hop away.

FACT: a very small fraction of nations that vote ever come to *any* of the NS forums to first state the justification for their vote, much less to keep an open mind before voting.

While I recognize that there is some truth to "different strokes for different folks", the point of the UN is about communication. Be it through resolutions, telegrams, or this forum. It sure isn't really going to change our game stats that much. We can't physically pass but one resolution every 4-6 days per year. In that same time span we can easily have adopted 12 daily issues.

In any event, wait til your proposal reaches the 135 endorsements. While telegramming is unfortunately an important part of that process, *working with* nations and building relationships is as well (perhaps to a lesser degree right now). You'll find yourself annoyed when you hear the same people that will cry, "This is too simple" turn around and say, "This is unrealistic ... it is a stupid runon sentence!" Basically they are cry babies and aren't interested in debating the issue, but looking for an easy out.

Yes, I definitely think they should be seperate. I just don't think it will ever happen, because no one likes invaders and coding a different process for them would never be put through, imho. So I'm happy to stick with the system we have, instead of no invading/defeding at all.

Yeah, one of these days I'd like to get a resolution out there. If I can go through a region of 6000 members asking for endorsements, I think I could manage 135 approvals. And I suspect the people without well-thought out arguments would indeed annoy me, but it's hard to escape from them anywhere.

It may be harder than you think to collect 135.

You can't count on sending out just 135 telegrams to even nations you suspect would likely support your proposal, as not all UN Delegates read their telegrams everyday. Furthermore, telegrams in the queue can be bumped out. Finally, some UN Delegates like to poll their region first even for endorsements.

I just cycled through the 16 pages of proposals, and frankly there is about 1 proposal every other page that is a blatant violation of the proposal rules and should immediately be kicked out: example Endangered Species Act.

The proposal isn't a bad idea, but it makes references to a ton of real-world treaties that don't yet exist in NationStates.

I could pull a few more examples, but it was annoying clicking through the first half of the queue.

This thread is about cleaning up the UN. I'm going to encourage people to help the moderators and when you see obvious no-nos, flag this to their attention. But do err on the side of caution. (Personally I do think NS needs another UN moderator to watch this forum and the proposal queue.)

\(Personally I do think NS needs another UN moderator to watch this forum and the proposal queue.)
Ever since Enodia left, it has been a bit less sterile. I have a strong distaste for sitting around telling the mods how to do their job, but (back when I was a delegate) I was always so reluctant to go through the list because of all the junk.

135 approvals requires the right timing, too... you want to submit it at the right time such that it will end up on the top of the first page... which time that is, I have no idea.

(Personally I do think NS needs another UN moderator to watch this forum and the proposal queue.)

The UN is generally one of those areas where a moderator or two will sweep through the entire list, cleaning out all the illegal ones in one go. For players to report them is generally unnecessary.

The UN is generally one of those areas where a moderator or two will sweep through the entire list, cleaning out all the illegal ones in one go. For players to report them is generally unnecessary.

Well, in principal I agree with the Unfree People and would rather *not* report unfit proposals to the mods, but do you know if somebody has been regularly sweeping (like once a week) through the list?

There were several proposals which targeted individual nations (though I personally would love to do this when it is in good fun, its against the rules), but more concerning where the proposals referencing the United States and worst yet the one targeting (to kill) all French. Killing French is not even remotely funny. :(

While few of these proposals will get more than a few dozen endorsements, each one only takes that much time from the proposals that do follow the rules.

BTW I'm happy to see that you are reading this thread as well Myrth.

Of course it is! The French have floundered since the days of Napoleon and acted as if they have never fallen from grace. We have no problen with annexing France as the 51st state of America, then airlift a buch of Texas rednecks into Paris and watch what happens.

Of course it is! The French have floundered since the days of Napoleon and acted as if they have never fallen from grace. We have no problen with annexing France as the 51st state of America, then airlift a buch of Texas rednecks into Paris and watch what happens.
What...on...earth... are you talking about?

If this has any relevance at all to the thread topic, I missed it.

The UN is generally one of those areas where a moderator or two will sweep through the entire list, cleaning out all the illegal ones in one go. For players to report them is generally unnecessary.
Given that the cycle time for approvals is four days or less, a weekly sweep doesn't help that much. Egregious rules violaters can post 4, 5, or 20 pointless proposals if they felt like it; which could go unnoticed by ANY mod if they only do an irregular sweep. Using Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=help) to report such violaters at least has the benefit of alerting mods to the names of the worst violaters.

I'd be in favor of at least a daily sweep. An alternate suggestion, letting delegates vote to reject proposals, just bit the dust in Technical; so mod intervention is our only real hope for separating the wheat from the chaff.