NationStates Jolt Archive

As President of The Holy Republic of Celticadia, I am outraged that the UN has become such a partisan organization. It doesn't seem to care about Conservative states who oppose gay marriages and abortion. I wanted to join this organization so I could connect to the world, so I applied. However, after reviewing laws that have been passed, I no longer wish to be a part of the organization, but I feel that it is too late.

The UN should not be a partisan organization, it should only address issues that do not favor people too far to the left or right. I am disappointed that it is such an undesirable organization for me to join because it doesn't care about my nation or its people.

My nation is composed of Catholics so the people oppose all the liberal things the UN is trying to do. Even if I leave the UN right after I am admitted, will I now be affected by the laws that have already passed? I fear that it is too late and even being a member for a second before leaving will force these laws upon my people forever, which I do not want.

Maybe I should join the UN though, would it work if I introduced a resolution to allow countries to choose on partisan issues like gay marriage and abortion? I think that would be the only fair way to go about things. Nations could still have these laws if they choose to have them, but nations who don't would be free to outlaw them. Thank you for your time.

will I now be affected by the laws that have already passed?No. You can resign now with no ill effect. Your nation will only be directly affected by Resolutions that pass while you are a member. However, all previously passed Resolutions have the force of International Law whilst you are an active menber of the UN.
Nations could still have these laws if they choose to have them, but nations who don't would be free to outlaw them. Sorry, it doesn't work that way and never will. Read the stickies and the UN FAQ.

The UN itself is not partisan, it's merely that the majority of NS is liberal.

You wish the UN to become an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy? :)

President Rusty Shackleford of The Armed Republic of Octoballia would like to note that he and his people are of a conservative nature, and it would appear the only way to get resolutions in favor of the right would be to get more conservative nations to join the UN.

You wish the UN to become an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy? :)

I suppose so. In that situation everybody wins. Not all countries should be but a large governing body like the UN would work best under that system in my opinion. Just because the majority of NationStates is liberal, it shouldn't mean the nations who aren't shouldn't be able to run the way they would like.

I suppose so. In that situation everybody wins. Not all countries should be but a large governing body like the UN would work best under that system in my opinion. Just because the majority of NationStates is liberal, it shouldn't mean the nations who aren't shouldn't be able to run the way they would like.

no matter what the un does there will be winners and losers. the only way to even try to prevent that is for it to pass no resolutions at all. but then the people who feel that the un ought to pass resolutions will feel that the un isn't doing what it should. the un cannot be all things to all people. you just have to take it as is.

From the desk of Representative Robert Anderson...

"Traxtonia is a liberal nation, that is true. As a U.N. member, we voted for what would best benefit it's people. But now as a regional delegate, I force myself to vote not for what would best suit my nation, but all the nations in my region. That means asking U.N. members in the region what they think, and the majority of that, rules. Even if their vote weighs against mine for my nations, it is the vote I must choose.

You have the ability to appeal to non U.N. conversative nations to apply for the U.N. to raise your ranks and voice, and I would strongly advise you to do that. We need more than one voice in this institution."


Robert Anderson
Representative, Kingdom of Traxtonia
A Place In The Sun Regional Delegate

That means asking U.N. members in the region what they think, and the majority of that, rules.

That's assuming that they will tell you their opnion, the last time I asked my region what they thought about a resolution I got 2 responses one saying vote yes and the other saying vote no.

Anyway on topic with the rest of the post, I consider part of the fun of being a UN member finding and exploiting the loopholes in resolutions that you disagree with.

That's assuming that they will tell you their opnion, the last time I asked my region what they thought about a resolution I got 2 responses one saying vote yes and the other saying vote no.



The deciding vote on that issue was the one of your nation. Though sometimes participation is not as strong as we would like, the option to voice one's opinion, should always be present.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are all relative terms. If you see it my way, I'm happy to be part of an organisation that enshrines the concept of equal rights (gay marriage) and the concept of personal choice (abortion).

It's all relative.

actually its not all relative. There are many who see abortion as wrong (myself included). How can we have attempt to outlaw the death penalty, but then say that abortion is right?

*sigh* You're taking this into a different argument. What I am saying is that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms depending on where you stand in your beliefs. In Texas, you'd be a liberal if you opposed the death penalty. In Ontario, that would place you in the centre. That's what I mean.

If you want to see what I had to say about abortion vs. death penalty, just click on my profile and look at my old posts. I don't want to steer this thread off.

From: The Proconsul of Propontus
TO: The UN assembly

I feel that I must personally address the UN regarding this issue. The Republic of Propontus strongly agrees with the opinions set forth by the nation of Celticadia. I have reviewed the resolutions that have been enacted by the UN. We, the people of Propontus feel that not only do the majority of these resolutions reflect a liberal view point, some actually conflict with each other. As an example, the Sexual Freedom Resolution states that what goes on between two consenting adults is generally their business and not that of the state. However the Gay Rights Resolution forces states to acknowledge and endorse gay mariages. If what do consenting adults do is not the business of the State, how can the state be forced to legalise endorse gay marriages? The Gay Rights Resolution is also contradictory to the Religous Tolerance Resolution. You have a resolution that calls for religous tolerance, yet you have another resolution that forces all states to endorse gay marriage, with no thought about the religous make-up of that state or that the state in question might be a theocracy.
We, the people of Propontus, will not stand for this kind of hypocrisy.
Propontus's legal experts have advised me that resolutions passed prior to our acceptance into the UN are NOT BINDING, and I as Proconsul, patently refuse to recognize the Gay Rights Resolution (among others), as it was enacted prior to our membership.
It was my decision to bring Propontus into the UN, a decision I am begining to regret. What future good works will this august body, this league of nations do? Perhaps the UN could pass resolutions endorsing drug abuse?
I see that the Nation of Traxtonia and Octobalia speak of having more conservative nations join the UN. What conservative nation would want to join the UN given its history?
I will restate what has been said before. Propontus WILL NOT tolerate interference in its domestic affairs.

I will restate what has been said before. Propontus WILL NOT tolerate interference in its domestic affairs.

Well, if you've joined the UN, you have already accepted UN "interference". You might not like it, and you can pretend otherwise, but that's the reality of the situation. Just don't flame the messenger ;)

The problem with the UN is that I suspect the liberals have more stomach for the policies passed...if the "right" had a bit more perseverence they would benefit.

(I hate using left-wing and right-wing...it's too simplistic)

If a resolution is passed, it would mean that the majority of people have said 'yes', would it not? And so if all resolutions are 'Liberal', that would mean a majority of people are 'liberal', wouldn't it? So it's working fine. That's what democracies do. Satisfy the majority and annoy the minority. Nobody said it was perfect. Besides, not all 'liberal' policies get through. The death penalty comes to mind.
Many 'conservatives' I know think the (RL) UN should be scrapped completely. Perhaps then, there are many 'conservative' NS states who think the same thing and so refuse to join? I know there are many nations who don't join for the same reasons you are complaining about. Perhaps if you explain how democracy works to these people, you could swing the votes in your favour?

President Rusty Shackleford of The Armed Republic of Octoballia would like to note that he and his people are of a conservative nature, and it would appear the only way to get resolutions in favor of the right would be to get more conservative nations to join the UN.
Bingo. If more conservative nations had leaders that think like you, then perhaps the UN would not be 'suffering' from this 'liberal bias'.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Bingo. If more conservative nations had leaders that think like you, then perhaps the UN would not be 'suffering' from this 'liberal bias'.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
I find this true and also hilarious.

I find it hilarious because of the number of nations there are in the UN screaming that people who disagree should leave. This, of course, will just make the UN less diverse and make it increasingly more liberal. This is one of the roots of my dislike for these parrots.

This post kept me laughing for hours.


Well, if you've joined the UN, you have already accepted UN "interference". You might not like it, and you can pretend otherwise, but that's the reality of the situation. Just don't flame the messenger

The problem with the UN is that I suspect the liberals have more stomach for the policies passed...if the "right" had a bit more perseverence they would benefit.


Hahahahaha! In the first part he's telling him that if he's a conservative or if he doesn't like UN resolutions, tough apples (in other words: he should leave). But in the second part he's condemning those that leave with a lack of perserverance (which apparently ths brave nation has ample supply of). I swear I'm about to poop my pants.

I am convinced that this sort of attitude will turn the UN only more and more into an exclusive country club which is not only meaningless, arrogant, and badly dressed, but also filled with people who are same-minded. It's already halfway there.

Anyway, I think too much "liberal damage" has been done for there to be a mass migration (or even a small migration) of conservative nations into the UN. The UN will remain a liberal body unless conservative nations are able to role-play out of the areas of dislike they have in the UN.

Hahahahaha! In the first part he's telling him that if he's a conservative or if he doesn't like UN resolutions, tough apples (in other words: he should leave). But in the second part he's condemning those that leave with a lack of perserverance (which apparently ths brave nation has ample supply of). I swear I'm about to poop my pants.

You've completely misunderstood or misrepresented their statement. It's a fact of the game that the UN interferes, therefore they're absolutely correct. The trick is to get the UN to interfere in your favour.

I would say that if you don't want any outside interference then don't join The UN (because that is the way The UN works) but if your worried about the wrong type of interference then you should campaign.

However you can't make a difference to the past.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You've completely misunderstood or misrepresented their statement. It's a fact of the game that the UN interferes, therefore they're absolutely correct. The trick is to get the UN to interfere in your favour.
Okay, Martha Stewart. I used this quote not because it was the best I could find but because it was the closest at hand. I think it illustrates the psuedo-paradox that exists in the UN accurately enough to be sufficient.

And what's with this "interefere in your favor", stuff? That's your motivation for doing things? If it's good for you or not? Wow, I hope you don't get involved in politics, business, or anything else where you'll need to make decisions. This is why capitalism is considered corrupt. Thank you for proving the points of Socialists around the world.

Okay, Martha Stewart. I used this quote not because it was the best I could find but because it was the closest at hand. I think it illustrates the psuedo-paradox that exists in the UN accurately enough to be sufficient.

And what's with this "interefere in your favor", stuff? That's your motivation for doing things? If it's good for you or not? Wow, I hope you don't get involved in politics, business, or anything else where you'll need to make decisions. This is why capitalism is considered corrupt. Thank you for proving the points of Socialists around the world.
Martha Stewart? Sigh. I have little idea who she is, so the comparison is meaningless to me. Anyway, I should clarify. I personally have no intention of interfering - I have never made a proposal. I meant that if you have a problem with the UN interfering with nations, you ought to recognise that it is in the nature of the game for it to do so. Given this, if you wish to avoid the UN pushing an undesirable consensus - left or right - on you then a good method of defence would be to push for it to enshrine your own views. Apologies, my earlier wording was clumsy.

Capitalism is corrupt? Who'd a thunk it?

Martha Stewart? Sigh. I have little idea who she is, so the comparison is meaningless to me. Anyway, I should clarify. I personally have no intention of interfering - I have never made a proposal. I meant that if you have a problem with the UN interfering with nations, you ought to recognise that it is in the nature of the game for it to do so. Given this, if you wish to avoid the UN pushing an undesirable consensus - left or right - on you then a good method of defence would be to push for it to enshrine your own views. Apologies, my earlier wording was clumsy.


Understood and points taken.

I do not deny that the UN is..."interfering" isn't the right word. The UN is mandating international law upon its member nations. This is definitely true. I agree that this is the point of the UN. It gives it the teeth it has.

I am flabbergasted, though, by the people who are so dogmatic with the "like it or lump it" attitude. I think they are just as in the wrong as the people they are "correcting". No I did not just say that "UN resolutions don't apply to me" or anything like that (for those of you waiting to jump on me for it). I think they are wrong in their approach and attitude and most times in why they're doing it.

I do not think that the best way to interact in the UN is to just push forward your views or attempt to enshrine them or make them resolution. I hope people just become quite more conscientious of others' choices, feelings, and political views. I believe some people in the UN have never smelt the strength of compromise or touched the beauty of coexistence.

I think people who get on soapboxes attacking those on other soapboxes need to be more aware of their own stances and sticking points. Aware of the ridiculousness of the scene.

*steps off of soapbox

I count my nation among the small list of nations that believes that nations that have no intention of ever participating by expressing their views and being willing to listen to other nation's views, would be better suited leaving the UN and just picking and choosing their own domestic policies.

This is not to say that conservative or liberal, capitalistic or socialistic nations have no place in the UN.

That said the problem with statements that there aren't "conservatives" in the UN, is that many nations frankly don't understand what labels like "conservative" or "liberal" mean.

A conservative UN member is a nation which only supports international action when there is an extremely well founded international justification and when they feel that the proposed action (i.e. resolution) addresses this international problem with minimal interference.

A liberal UN member is a nation which prescribes to the theory that UN resolutions are recommendations to be loosely rewritten on a national basis.

As for nations that promote issues like the standardization of prostition or saving all the forests by simply saying "Let's save forests", my government simply would describe these nations as "idealistic UN members". They aren't liberals, because they honestly expect other nations to follow their often poorly world resolutions to the letter. They aren't conservative, as often they fail to demonstrate any internataional standing (though in many cases it is there ... they just assume we will agree with their opinion). They simply are idealistic.

That said, my nation is at times conservative and at other times liberal, but I would hate for my government to be considered idealistic.

Heh, glad we understand each other better now. It's worth noting that many nations who may adopt a somewhat grumpy 'like it or lump it' attitude have had the 'I hate the UN's liberal bias!' line shoved down their throats for months now. It gets tiresome. I wouldn't interpret most of these comments as being dogmatic so much as... terse.

I do not think that the best way to interact in the UN is to just push forward your views or attempt to enshrine them or make them resolution. I hope people just become quite more conscientious of others' choices, feelings, and political views. I believe some people in the UN have never smelt the strength of compromise or touched the beauty of coexistence.
The irony is that this is exactly what most of the good resolution drafters do. I've seen many lengthy drafts submitted by nations such as Hirota (who you quoted earlier) that have been sensitively amended following lengthy discussions. Ultimately, you just can't please everybody. Incidentally, the above quote of yours coincides pretty perfectly with my own views.

An aside... a problem with the visual nature of our communications is that we don't always perceive the tone of the speaker's voice. It's something to be careful of and I know I often fall into this trap. What may appear a terse or cutting comment is perhaps delivered with an unseen smile, or wink. Ah, well. I'll relinquish my own soapbox now.

Democracy does what the majority wants, but it protects the rights of the minority.

If you can find where I said we shouldn't protect the minority in my post, I'll give you a packet of biscuits. I simply said it annoyed the minority, which it tends to do. I think the person in post #1 demonstrates this.

An aside... a problem with the visual nature of our communications is that we don't always perceive the tone of the speaker's voice. It's something to be careful of and I know I often fall into this trap. What may appear a terse or cutting comment is perhaps delivered with an unseen smile, or wink. Ah, well.
Haha, good point. Now that you mention it, I recall that the many of the more effective posters do use those "smileys" a lot so their tone is better represented. I hope I haven't come across as too...brash (not my intention at all). I should start using those emoticons more.

Haha, good point. Now that you mention it, I recall that the many of the more effective posters do use those "smileys" a lot so their tone is better represented. I hope I haven't come across as too...brash (not my intention at all). I should start using those emoticons more.
Y'know, I just can't bring myself to use them. There's something about smileys and emoticons that just doesn't sit right with me. So I guess I'll just have to risk coming across like a grouch.

If you can find where I said we shouldn't protect the minority in my post, I'll give you a packet of biscuits. I simply said it annoyed the minority, which it tends to do. I think the person in post #1 demonstrates this.

But that was my point, that it shouldn't annoy the minority. The minority (in RL) should be well enough cared for that they don't feel obligated to emigrate.

Once again, to the race example (which I hope to be as tactfully with as possible), nations who do things which annoy or in any way make the minority feel uncomfortable are often condemned on an international scale. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Russia (with Chechnya) and such all have bad raps for their treatments of diversity. Anything from armbands to ethnic cleansing are "annoying" to the minority and frowned upon in the internat'l community. i don't think something being annoying to the minority is an adequate rubric of whether it's effective or right or anything like that. I don't pretend to know exactly how this should apply here in NS, but I think it does somewhere.

Also, I should note that my past was more in protest of the fact that you omitted the "protection of minority" section. Not that you spoke against it (even though I believe you did, even if only slightly). A lot of what a body is can be determined by what they disallow; even more can be determined by what they encourage.

But that was my point, that it shouldn't annoy the minority. The minority (in RL) should be well enough cared for that they don't feel obligated to emigrate.

Once again, to the race example (which I hope to be as tactfully with as possible), nations who do things which annoy or in any way make the minority feel uncomfortable are often condemned on an international scale. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Russia (with Chechnya) and such all have bad raps for their treatments of diversity. Anything from armbands to ethnic cleansing are "annoying" to the minority and frowned upon in the internat'l community. i don't think something being annoying to the minority is an adequate rubric of whether it's effective or right or anything like that. I don't pretend to know exactly how this should apply here in NS, but I think it does somewhere.

Also, I should note that my past was more in protest of the fact that you omitted the "protection of minority" section. Not that you spoke against it (even though I believe you did, even if only slightly). A lot of what a body is can be determined by what they disallow; even more can be determined by what they encourage.

I'm quite confused as to what dictionary you are using for your definition of annoying. I was annoyed when Tony Blair was voted in as leader of Britain, for I was in a minority and so the vote didn't go my way. My civil and political rights weren't revoked as a result of being annoyed though...

My point was, not everyone gets their own way in a democracy. Unless you want to change the system so that resolutions are enacted and yet they aren't, somehow, to satisfy EVERYONE and effectively destroy the point, that's never going to change. I'm not sure how that's an attack on minorities, I thought it was a well-known fact, but... :confused:

I also wasn't aware that every time you mentioned that not everyone gets their way in a democratic system you also had to point out there are or have been oppressed people in the world, but hey, whatever. I'll make a point of listing all the groups I know of that have been or are still being oppressed in the world from now on, every time I mention that you can loose a vote and it generally annoys you.

Perhaps most UN members are Liberal, but it's not the UN's fault. It's the leader's choice to join.

I know that if I don't like it I can just leave, but I don't want to do that. I want to be part of the UN and participate in International politics. What I'm saying is that the UN shouldn't even address moral issues. I would not want to introduce a resolution to ban gay marriages in the UN because that would not be fair to the liberal nations.

The UN wants people to have the right to choose, so why not have the choice to choose on these moral issues. I'm not concerned with many of the other issues, but the moral issues of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Prostitution, and Euthanasia stand out to me. It certainly is not a good thing to have conservative nations feel unwelcome.

Prostitution is banned in the US, because the UN doesn't force them to make it legal, even though many UN nations in Europe are liberal and it is legal in The Netherlands.

This is why if I become a delegate I want to propose the resolution of countries choosing where to stand on moral issues. Majority matters in countries, not a large governing body such as the UN. However, I was told that resoultion would not work and I have no idea why. It makes a lot of sense to me. As for all the other issues in the UN, I don't have a problem with making them the law in every country because they are not moral issues.

President maffret.....


I am sure that we all understand the concept of the U.N., but just in case we forgot...

The U.N. has curtain responsabilities these are them:

A) Peace and security
B) Economic and Social Development
C) Human Rights
D) Humanitarian Affairs
E) International Laws: Trade laws
Treaties
Laws of the Sea
Special laws:concerning nations without stable governments.


I may be totally wrong [allthough i dont think so] but nowhere is there a section on writting laws that must be enforced just because a majority votes yes. Before we vote on a proposal or even submit one think for a minute; does it fit in one of these catagories or not?

Thank you for your time and patience.

Is "UN" another word for "World Imperium of the Majority"..!?

In my country we abhor silly rules,... especially long-winded legalistic ones.

"Say it ONE breath..!" is the rule for dictates and laws.

Any UN enforcers entering my nation to enforce what my population
considers a silly law will be slaughtered with sharp clam shells and fed to the
man-eating-clams off our southern shore.

This is NOT a dictate of our government, per se. It is simply our culture.

Respect our culture on our land, or kill us all,.. as that is what you'd have to
do.

There are those who consider the UN to be a government. We consider it to
be a meeting place.

Let us talk, not impose.

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah-Man" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules by yours..!"

I am sure that we all understand the concept of the U.N., but just in case we forgot....
Lacomb, that's a fine set of ideals, really it is. Unfortunately, it's not our set of ideals.

The NationStates UN alone determines what spheres of influence it may affect. We have a set of broad parameters (Social Justice, Human Rights, Political Stability, et. al) under which we must submit our proposals. You will find many fine Delegates here debating the very points you raised, and as circumstances would dictate, Frisbeeteria agrees with you almost across the board. Still, we are not limited to those topics. We may pursue broader reaches, and our majority decisions have the force of law to UN members.
I may be totally wrong
Unfortunately, you are. The UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/44244/page=display_nation/page=faq#UN) (which we hope you read before signing up) states quite clearly
So I'm a UN member. Now what?
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)
It's part and parcel to the very concept of the NS UN. You're a member, you abide by the rules. Majority wins the votes. That's how she works, sir.

I'm sure there are many reasons for joining the NS UN. Some come here to promote their agendas. Others simply seek a soapbox, which by tradition is open to members and non-members alike. As for Frisbeeteria, we appreciate the opportunity to subvert and discredit our political enemies, all in the guise of a friendly diplomatic discussion. You see? Something for almost everyone. You merely have to decide for yourself what you want out of it, and what you're willing to put into it. Fair enough, sir?

Lacomb, that's a fine set of ideals, really it is.
Unfortunately, it's not our set of ideals.

The NationStates UN alone determines what spheres of influence it may
affect. We have a set of broad parameters (Social Justice, Human Rights,
Political Stability, et. al) under which we must submit our proposals. You will
find many fine Delegates here debating the very points you raised, and as
circumstances would dictate, Frisbeeteria agrees with you almost across the
board. Still, we are not limited to those topics. We may pursue broader
reaches, and our majority decisions have the force of law to UN
members.

Unfortunately, you are. The UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-
bin/index.cgi/44244/page=display_nation/page=faq#UN) (which
we hope you read before signing up) states quite clearly

It's part and parcel to the very concept of the NS UN. You're a member, you
abide by the rules. Majority wins the votes. That's how she works, sir.

I'm sure there are many reasons for joining the NS UN. Some come here to
promote their agendas. Others simply seek a soapbox, which by tradition is
open to members and non-members alike. As for Frisbeeteria, we appreciate
the opportunity to subvert and discredit our political enemies, all in the guise
of a friendly diplomatic discussion. You see? Something for almost
everyone. You merely have to decide for yourself what you want out of it,
and what you're willing to put into it. Fair enough, sir?

Then Iakeokeo too must immediately resign from the UN.

My culture will not abide by such silliness as the concept that because "the
meeting hall" thinks it is our "mother and father", we should accept it as such..!

My people laugh, respectfully, at those who would believe such silliness,.. we
laugh loudly and without shame at those of you who would put your people
through the embarassment and outrage at putting them in that position.

May you awaken from the folly of your power-mad ways..!

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I'm sure there are many reasons for joining the NS UN. Some come here to promote their agendas. Others simply seek a soapbox, which by tradition is open to members and non-members alike. As for Frisbeeteria, we appreciate the opportunity to subvert and discredit our political enemies, all in the guise of a friendly diplomatic discussion.

***
Upon overhearing Frisbeeteria's "advice" to the new ambassador from Lacomb, 10kMichael frowns. He then pulls out his laptop and begins typing a few notes.

Seated not far from the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, the ambassador from Komokom notices that the Mikitivity Ambassador had a file opened up titled, "UN Trojan Horse." Before the ambassador can see what 10kMichael was typing, 10k quickly pops a small memory key in his machine and then opens up a series of reports titled "UN Funding" and "Foreign Aid". 10k begins tearing through the reports with machine like speed, occasionally stopping to glance again in the direction of Frisbeeteria and Lacomb and adding a few more notes on his notepad, before tabbing back to dozens of UN budgets and reports.

***

QUOTE: "The NationStates UN alone determines what spheres of influence it may affect. We have a set of broad parameters (Social Justice, Human Rights, Political Stability, et. al) under which we must submit our proposals. You will find many fine Delegates here debating the very points you raised, and as circumstances would dictate, Frisbeeteria agrees with you almost across the board. "
-------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Political Advisor Leblanc......

So...what you are saying is that the U.N. has no boundries at all....it can just do what ever it wants as long as the "Majority" says its ok? Even if the "Majority" said all U.N. Nations should lets say; oh i dont know how about today everyone votes yes to ban abortion then say two days from today they vote yes to punish those who have abortions? I mean im no expert [actually i am] but this sounds so much like a dictatorship, doesnt it. Instaed of destroying the fair name of the U.N. you should change the name to "THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" . Im sure no-one would mind!!!! This is a one world gov. not the U.N., at least admit that.

Sr. Military Advisor Pitain......

Due to the "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" idealism of the U.N. The proud nation of Lacomb cannot support any nation who is currently a member of said Dictatorship. All and any aid both Humanitarian or Militant has ceased and will not begin again untill membership is cancealed.


President Maffret.....

I would like to start by saying that i am not angry nor do i have harsh feelings toward any nation members of the "ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT" however my people are a proud and intelligent nation who admire our culture. Having nowhere to turn for assistance that is to say from a non-dictatorship my staff and i have decided to create a new U.N. sort of group. This group has no name as of yet, nor due we plan on creating one as of yet. The goal's of the group are outlined here as well as in [my new thread] other documents. The goals and responsabilties are these:

A) To assist in matters of Peace and Security
B) To assist in Economical and Social Development
C) To assist in maintaining Human Rights
D) To be involved in Humanitarian Affairs
E) To assist in keeping with International Laws as:
Trade Laws
Treaties
Laws of the Sea
Special Laws[non-governing]

The goals are simple to provide a service for and to nations who would not normally be able to provide for themselves as well as bring other cultures and nations into a meeting place where they can discuss topics which would benifit everyone involved. There will be voting and such but we WILL NOT force any ideas or laws of our own on any nation.

If this is what you wanted from the U.N. in the first place and you still desire this style of politics then i incourage you to step up and be counted for not against. Thank you all and continue to be safe!

Yeah, you may have been annoyed in your minority status but that isn't THE POINT of democracy, to annoy you.


I didn't say that's the POINT of democracies, I said that's what they DO.

Hm, I think you may need new reading glasses, a better understanding of what I was saying, or some porcupine-from-anus removal cream because you are completely off-base with this. I don't mean that democracy was to satisfy everyone (which you seem to think I do). I didn't want to suggest that not promoting minorities' agendas was an attack upon them (which apparently you believe I did). And I never said that you are a raging flamer (which you've just proven yourself to be).

I am a raging flamer? Interesting. I thought I managed to maintain a surprising level of dignity considering your agreeing with me then telling me I'm wrong; it can be rather infuriating. And I could have sworn that you're the one arguing with me for argument's sake, then resorting to childish insults when your attention span dwindles...

I don't think it'll work to have half-way resolutions, either. But a little tact and grace as the majority would fly a lot smoother than you will as I punt you across this forum.

Again, an interesting example of not flaming...

Wow, seems that you are unaware of a lot. But considering the lack of understanding you've lent to my arguments, I'm not surprised.

Considering that I never intended to say that minorities should be ignored, and you apparently read things that aren't there, I'm not surprised you think that as I do in fact agree with you; minorities shouldn't be ignored and have their rights taken away.

Look, democracy is designed to represent everyone. Obviously the majority representation is going to command the agenda. But through this command the majority must not take away the rights and privileges of the minority.

No, you're right, they shouldn't. But I never said that they should, so I'm still not sure what your point is.

If you're annoyed when things don't go your way that's your own problem. Deal with it on your own time, with your own money, and with your own kind, namely: with other carnally violated, two-year-old sheep.

When you learn how to read, maybe operate with some level of civility, and put a few years on your mental age, come back and talk to me again. Childish insults get you... well, nothing, really. And your post is full of them. Bye!

In real-life, haven't there been nations who've tried to form a sort of alternative to the U.N. due to their displeasure of the organization?

The member for Cave Canem, having stepped over the brawling delegates from Powerhungry Chipmunks and Mattikistan in the corridor outside, notes that this is clearly an area which our colleagues feel strongly about.

We have just this to add to the debate - it's important to note that not only to UN members decide whether or not resolutions get passed, they also decide whether or not resolutions ever make it as far as a vote.

Clearly there are those who remain outside the UN because they don't like the organisation's involvement in 'moral' affairs, or those that interfere with the theology of nations. In our mind the way to address this problem is not to remain outside the UN and take no part in the process of decision making - it is to join the UN, be engaged, be vocal, be persuasive - try and ensure that the resolutions you think are inappropriate don't come to vote.

The UN exists and isn't going anywhere, but the issues we debate and eventually do or do not become proposals and subsequently resolutions are not set in stone. If you oppose some of the policies that the UN becomes involved in forming then stay within the organisation, encourage nations you feel have the same objectives to join - make your opposition mean something.

Please excuse this speaker for his black eye, we were hit by a stray bottle thrown by the delegate for Powerhungry Chipmunks (clearly intended for the member for Mattikistan) on the way here this morning.

Member for Cave Canem

In real-life, haven't there been nations who've tried to form a sort of alternative to the U.N. due to their displeasure of the organization?

There is one for every taste; a moral majority, an anti-communist, an pro-sovereign rights group. Snoop around in game play and see what you can find

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

When you learn how to read, maybe operate with some level of civility, and put a few years on your mental age, come back and talk to me again.

I would pause here only to note that you too have issued some "childish insults". Ironic, isn't it.

And I'm not the only one guilty of a little elaboration upon post language.




Anyway, to keep the forum on track, whether it is appropriate or not, the attitude that people who disagree should leave the UN (once again, I'm not labeling it as good or bad) produces this "liberal majority" which these nations are complaining about.

Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.

1) Gay Rights resolution passes (obviously a “liberal” proposal)

2) Nations which do not support Gay Rights are told to get out of the UN

3) Nations which do not support Gay Rights leave UN (these nations tend to be mostly “conservative”)

4) Nations which support Gay Rights now hold even more of the majority (“liberal” majority)

5) Legalize Prostitution resolution passes (or a like "liberal" resolution)

6) Rinse and Repeat

It's a vicious cycle.

In real-life, haven't there been nations who've tried to form a sort of alternative to the U.N. due to their displeasure of the organization?

OOC: Not on a global scale, at least with respect to governments. The point that the NS UN and the real life UN are different is scope is valid. Few of the resolutions we've passed would ever hit the floor of the UN General Assembly. The few that might have though do pay a tip to the hat of nation's "self rule" (that magic sovereignty word again). Lacomb's point about what the NS UN should do is actually a pretty accurate protrayal of what the real UN limits itself to: human rights, political stability, environmental accords, basic health, and exchanging of information. You'd never see issues like "gun control", "gambling", or "gay marriage" hit the UN.

Note that gambling and gun control are what a typical American would associate as "hard on" issues for conservatives (though a true conservative wouldn't give a darn about these issues), and "gay marriage" will make your stereotypical American liberal wet (again liberal and conservative are bad names, because there are conservatives that do support this as well).

NationStates really only borrowed the name UN. It really is up to us to decide if this is just a poorly thought out "international organization" or one that behaves a bit more like the real UN.

For starters: Previously passed resolutions don't affect your nation upon entry. So far, so good.

When proposals come up for endorsement, there is quite a bit of debate that goes on, and more than once I've seen people's minds changed by that debate. If UN members running a conservative nation object to a proposal, the forum allows those objections to be laid out. If your arguments are thoughtful and well-reasoned rather than a knee-jerk response, you have a decent chance of winning some people over. Big Hint: the most effective way to do this is not by hauling out and waving the old National Sovereignty banner. The game mechanics themselves are against you there. But if you present a logical argument about the unintended consequences, the potential bad results of a resolution that some of the voting representatives might not have thought of yet, well, now you may get somewhere.

Also, please note that the proposals that garner the most support are the thoroughly thought-out ones that go into detail about what they do and what they don't do, and many of those are pre-debated in these fora. (I've referred to this as the 'markup phase' of proposal preparation, and I commend it highly to anyone drafting proposals. Beta-testing is a good thing.) When someone posts a proposal in draft form for comment, by all means comment - this is your best opportunity to persuade the sponsor to water down the language and give you wiggle room. This is where something that starts as a binding resolution (strong game effect) can become a "recommendation" (weak game effect), if you keep your head and argue logically and persuasively.

If a proposal becomes a resolution before the General Assembly, that's when it's time to marshal your forces rather than acting individually. At this time there is no option for a no vote on proposal approval - maybe we'll get that in the next version. But remember this: at the proposal stage, the process is driven by relatively few active players, and since there's no disapproval threshold, it's difficult to actively block a proposal. But at the resolution stage, whichever side stirs the most players to activity will win. If you aggressively promote your agenda and get like-minded folk to vote, you can defeat proposals you don't agree with. That's the importance of staying in: voter turnout.

Finally, remember that this is a game, and as such you can game the system. For one thing, the UN is not bound by precedent. So there's a prior resolution legalizing abortion? Draft a resolution narrowly crafted to allow member states to decide whether abortion is legal or not. (Combining multiple issues is an excellent way to get your proposal killed.) As long as it's not expressly an amendment or repeal, you're within the rules. The idea is that the area affected (morality, civil rights vs. law and order, etc.) and strength of the resolution should counterbalance, in game-effect terms, the resolution you didn't like. For that matter, you can really game the system by counterbalancing the game effect of a resolution you don't like with a resolution that addresses a completely different issue within the same category of issues. Balance out prostitution with gambling, or the death penalty with community policing. Get creative - use the system for yourself instead of against others. ;)

Finally, remember that this is a game, and as such you can game the system. For one thing, the UN is not bound by precedent. So there's a prior resolution legalizing abortion? Draft a resolution narrowly crafted to allow member states to decide whether abortion is legal or not.

OOC:
Actually the NS UN is bound by precendents set in the NS UN. While our game stats are only changed by resolutions resolved while we are members, we simply are not allowed to repeal or amend prior resolutions.

Touching issues like prosititution will be difficult, since a few resolutions already have.

Earlier I said there are no other real-life organizations like the UN. I was of course discounting the League of Arab States and the Commonwealth of Nations since they both have a focus / limitation upon who can be members. There are plenty of examples of uni-lateral international organizations, but none that I can think of is as broad based as the UN (or the League of Nations before it).

Info on the League of Arab States:
http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/index_en.jsp

Info on the Commonwealth of Nations:
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/

At best, I'd say these real-life organizations are what we treat "Regions" as in our UN.

Well, if so-called "conservative" nations were to get off their duff longer than just spouting off at the mouth at how "liberal" the UN is and did something about it for a change, this wouldn't an issue, now would it?

In one sense I think the "liberal" / "conserative" debate for the NS UN is somewhat silly. It is the nature of the Nationstates UN to pass resolutions that globally effect all nations. In general, you are going to see more liberal resolutions than conserative because in general global regulating legislation is a more liberal idea than a conserative one.

Actually I see more of an issue between global and national interests, and in general those who tend to support local national interests sometimes tend to be more conserative, but not always. Here there are two types of resolutions (aside from the third type known as moronic). One resolution is a UN resolution because it is really a global problem. (The whale resolution can be seen as a really global problem; whales freely swim across national borders and through international waters.) The othe resolution is merely a general issue applied on a global UN scale. It is the latter type of issues that tend to be labled "liberal."

The othe resolution is merely a general issue applied on a global UN scale. It is the latter type of issues that tend to be labled "liberal."

I still believe that is a misuse of the word liberal.

The question of standing shouldn't be part of the test used to lable a proposal "conservative" vs. "liberal".

That said, I do believe that the question of international standing should be applied to every UN proposal / action. And you are correct to point out that many UN resolutions do not have international standing (i.e. justification). In the case of Whales, I'd say that it is clear that any fisheries related issue has that standing. The debate should of course focus more on the effectiveness of the proposed UN action and the impacts of the action on our societies.

OOC....

Just one more addition to all of this. To be effective in the NS UN you do have to have endorsements. with out these you really cant DO anything effective. So if one is new to the U.N and has no endorsements or not enough, then all one can do is sit and let things [proposals] effect them without being able to have a voice, or to begin proposals themselves. In other words with out endorsments [which are hard to come by] you just sit and let it all effect you and if you dont like it leave......YEAH....A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!!!! what i always wanted! And by the by, lets not forget the European Union as another form of U.N. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOC....
In other words with out endorsments [which are hard to come by] you just sit and let it all effect you and if you dont like it leave......YEAH....A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!!!! what i always wanted! And by the by, lets not forget the European Union as another form of U.N. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Endorsements are easy to get. Even though politically your nation may not agree with mine, your interest in quality UN proposals is enough that if you moved to the International Democratic Union that you'd get my endorsement and chances are extremely good that the other nations there would be more than happy to endorse you.

OOC: The EU is a regional organization focused on trade and local issues. I wouldn't compare it to the real life UN. But that said, it is probably more like what the NS UN behaves like.

I have proposed a resolution regarding this matter. I urge any delegates to support it.

A delegate sent me a telegram telling me of his support today but said the resolution wouldn't work until the mods build repeals into the UN. However, he encouraged me to propose the resolution again once repeals are built in.

In my opinion, it doesn't really work as a repeal, but if the mods decide it does, so be it. If the proposal doesn't pass approval this time, I will be sure to re-submit it when the mods finish addressing the issue of repeals for the UN.

In my opinion, it doesn't really work as a repeal, but if the mods decide it does, so be it. If the proposal doesn't pass approval this time, I will be sure to re-submit it when the mods finish addressing the issue of repeals for the UN.
A: It's a repeal.
B: You won't get a second chance (see below)
C: The mods (technically admins) will not be addressing the issue of appeals in NS 1, and it's a moot point for NS II because the rules are different.

..................
Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) says:
Addendum: New Schedule of Proposal Offences
There are now two types of Proposal Offences, Minor Offences and Flagrant Offences. 3 Minor Offences will get you removed from the UN, while 1 Flagrant Offence is enough.

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.

A: It's a repeal.
B: You won't get a second chance (see below)
C: The mods (technically admins) will not be addressing the issue of appeals
in NS 1, and it's a moot point for NS II because the rules are different.

..................
Before you
make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176) says:
Addendum: New Schedule of Proposal Offences
There are now two types of Proposal Offences, Minor Offences and Flagrant
Offences. 3 Minor Offences will get you removed from the UN, while 1
Flagrant Offence is enough.

Flagrant Offences
1. Radical changes to Game Mechanics - including but not limited to the
following: setting up parallel UNs, Security Councils etc; allowing individual
nations to decide whether or not to abide by resolutions; repeal
proposals or proposals supporting the repeal of past resolutions.


So,.. would this count as "Parallel UN's"...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349937


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

That's not right at all either. It's an imperialist thought to force laws on people and not allow them to make resolutions against being forced to do all things the liberal majority wants. I still think this is no repeal.

C: The mods (technically admins) will not be addressing the issue of appeals in NS 1, and it's a moot point for NS II because the rules are different.


Have you heard something new about this, because the last I heard was that [violet] was in the process of coding repeals into the UN.

That's not right at all either. It's an imperialist thought to force laws on people and not allow them to make resolutions against being forced to do all things the liberal majority wants. I still think this is no repeal.

You are misusing "Imperialism / Imperialist".

Imperialism implies direct control / influence. [OOC: Think 19th Century England, France, Germany, etc.]

Membership in the UN is not mandatory. Nobody has a nuke hanging over your capital, so you are free to leave.

That said, an earlier statement about Catholics being conservative is not universally true. I think this may have been your nation's statement, but in any event, I felt it important to point out that Catholics are not universally "conservative". In fact, I tend to count individual Catholics as being more likely to favour liberal positions, especially humanitarian and social justice positions, with the notable exception being homosexuality, where there is something of a don't ask, don't tell policy that is really practiced. In short, a homosexual is more likely to find a friend in a Catholic than he / she will in a Baptist, Mormon, or Muslim. I certainly disagree with the opinion that just because a nation is Catholic that it should be opposed to the UN!

But then again, my nation has no official religion.

[OOC: If you want to look at a truly conservative society, look at Iran or Saudi Arabia, both are Islamic governments. While the Vatican is conservative with respect to international issues such as population control, the Roman Catholic Church is extremely opposed to warfare and genocide. I'd classify most Catholic nations as pro-internationalization. Examples: Poland, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Mexico, the Phillipines, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Hungary, etc.

Interesting Link:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/unitednations.html

The liberal nations are most certainly the Protestant influenced states (often Lutheran sect). Buddist and Hindu nations also tend to favour human rights and social justice issues, especially health related issues. Unfortunately they tend to be less affluent than Protestant dominanted nations.

Anyway, continue to read that link. The real UN is very anti-Israel, and yet Israel is still in the UN. My point is if you are finding that the UN is biased against your personal viewpoints, you might want to stick it out.]

Yes, in the real world all these Catholic nations are in the UN, but the UN does not force countries to take the UN majority position on moral issues.

Basically, as other people have done, you're telling me to leave something that I want to be part of because it refuses to welcome me by being open to my concerns. True, it's not really imperialist because I can leave at any time, but I don't like how I have to leave for my nation's moral concerns and then I miss out on the other benefits.

Yes, in the real world all these Catholic nations are in the UN, but the UN does not force countries to take the UN majority position on moral issues.

Basically, as other people have done, you're telling me to leave something that I want to be part of because it refuses to welcome me by being open to my concerns. True, it's not really imperialist because I can leave at any time, but I don't like how I have to leave for my nation's moral concerns and then I miss out on the other benefits.

To be honest, I'd rather your nation stay in the UN.

OOC: Most of the world is very anti-sematic. Case in point, look at the shit that Iran is pulling in the current olympics. Did you know that there is an olympics committee that patrols the village and removes any political messages? Why is it then that the IOC hasn't condemned Iran for refusing to allow an athelete to compete against an Israeli?

While I think the government of Israel has done some pretty unspeakable things, the people aren't the problem. And the hatred of Jews is certainly not limited to the Middle East ... I was shocked to see modern day Europeans being so hostile to Jews as well.

In any event, I actually admire Israel for remaining in the UN despite so many UN resolutions being against it. No doubt that without a US around to back the government, it would have left the UN long ago.

I bring this up, because I think it is fine to have a conservative view point. But instead of whining about it -or- instead of claiming that Catholic nations are conservative, because they aren't if you look at Islamic nations, start trying to maybe build a "Catholic Coalition" of nations. You could do that here. Just say that you want to establish embassies (add to your dosier) any nations that agree with the Vatican and then that your nations will vote together in UN laws.

In other words, don't complain about liberals, but use the UN to forward your own agenda. I've been playing since Jan. 2004 and I've noticed that the nations (including conservatives like Frisebeteria) stick around when they actually do more than complain. When you start working the system, the game can be rewarding. It isn't really about "winning" or "dominating", but all in how you play the game.

Heck, there are ways that a "Catholic" nation could easily have talked my nation and other outspoken pro social justice nations to voting against resolutions at a vote. The easiest way is if you see a proposal you don't like in the queue, write a watered down version of it that is *better* written.

Two of the three resolutions I wrote are just that. I took extremist resolutions and watered them down to a point that UN moderates would appreciate them.

You only have about 3 days worst case to do this, but it is possible. I've done it twice, and constantly work behind the scenes to put out potential fires that threaten my nation. :)

1) Gay Rights resolution passes (obviously a “liberal” proposal)

2) Nations which do not support Gay Rights are told to get out of the UN

3) Nations which do not support Gay Rights leave UN (these nations tend to be mostly “conservative”)

4) Nations which support Gay Rights now hold even more of the majority (“liberal” majority)

5) Legalize Prostitution resolution passes (or a like "liberal" resolution)

6) Rinse and Repeat

It's a vicious cycle.
Actually, 2) doesn't happen nearly as much as 'Conservative nations whinge then bugger off once they realise the game mechanics don't allow them to ignore the resolution'.

Wait until the conservative members of the UN see my resolution. They'll have a coronary. :eek: :headbang: It actually suggests making Gay Marriage :fluffle: , Public Nudity, Prositution and Drug Use compulsory never mind being optional . HAHA :p

As President of The Holy Republic of Celticadia, I am outraged that the UN has become such a partisan organization. It doesn't seem to care about Conservative states who oppose gay marriages and abortion. I wanted to join this organization so I could connect to the world, so I applied. However, after reviewing laws that have been passed, I no longer wish to be a part of the organization, but I feel that it is too late.

The UN should not be a partisan organization, it should only address issues that do not favor people too far to the left or right. I am disappointed that it is such an undesirable organization for me to join because it doesn't care about my nation or its people.

My nation is composed of Catholics so the people oppose all the liberal things the UN is trying to do. Even if I leave the UN right after I am admitted, will I now be affected by the laws that have already passed? I fear that it is too late and even being a member for a second before leaving will force these laws upon my people forever, which I do not want.

Maybe I should join the UN though, would it work if I introduced a resolution to allow countries to choose on partisan issues like gay marriage and abortion? I think that would be the only fair way to go about things. Nations could still have these laws if they choose to have them, but nations who don't would be free to outlaw them. Thank you for your time.


We are liberal because the majority of its nations are!!!

Yes, I know, that's what we've been talking about.

Wait until the conservative members of the UN see my resolution. They'll have a coronary. It actually suggests making Gay Marriage , Public Nudity, Prositution and Drug Use compulsory never mind being optional . HAHA

It's never going to get approved for vote. In fact, you should just get a warning for spamming up the proposal list.

"I can assure the first speaker here that the UN majority is not merely liberal. Rather, it is socialist to the point of communism. This is not so because a majority of NS nations is of such a conviction, but because of their active lobbying as a dangerous special interest group that does not take into account the silent majorities.

We are actually in favour of many UN legislation. Gay rights, prostitution, etcetera are issues we share. However the economic agenda of these special interest groups is most certainly not a liberal one."

It's never going to get approved for vote.

I agree.

Besides, being too extreme on either end of the political spectrum is a sure fire way to throw away any political power your nation may have.

OOC:
This actually was a fear of many US Democrats when this Spring several US cities started issuing same sex marriage licenses (Portland and San Francisco).

A news clip about Portland:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/03/same.sex.marriage/

A recent news clip about San Francisco:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/

Although the California SC overturned the San Fracisco licenses, back in March, it was feared that this nation-wide "revolt" might pust moderates into the George Bush camp, and cost the Democrats the White House in Nov. 2004.

Compromise and moderation are actually important, which is why I welcome conservative voices in the NS UN ... provided they treat this body with respect. As of right now, there are a few such nations that are not doing so in the Whaling debate.

((OOC: Look. I should add that I roleplay my nation as quite, uhm. See the signature. Self-explanatory I would think. Now, I do not post in the UN very often because I focus on roleplay, but I do read stuff now and then.

I am actually a member of a liberal party IRL. However I should say that from the liberal side there are ideological shells before your eyes that can get really irritating. Instead of blatantly pushing your agenda you could at least try to be percieved as moderate and negotiate a bit more pragmatic deals.

Gay marriage is FINE with me as something to legalise but there have been, like, a dozen OMG SAVE TEH TREES! resolutions that destroy the timber industry. Really, there are limits to the amount of ideological resulutions any non-liberal nation can bear. I sympathise heavily with the more moderate people who are leaving the UN because of this. (Not really the right wing nuts, but I am talking about moderate nations who are leaving. No offense, but 'the sexes rights' was a confusing resolution saying a lot of warm words and not really dealing with a single issue. It had this "let us be nice" feeling which I feel does not really belong in a UN resolution. Just a friendly pointer.))

For the record...its not the UN that supports the leftist resolutions. Its the mindless delegates within the UN who don't know what topics are under the jurisdiction of the UN and what aren't. Therefore there are resolutions being written...in the WRONG format....that aren't even debatable by the UN. Don't blame the UN....blame the ignorant people in it.

If you think the UN only supports liberal nations, than get more conservative nations to join. Maybe the majority of people are liberal. Certainly the majority of UN nations are, so it's only natural that most resolutions are progressive. That's how democracy works. The only way to change that is to either get more conservative nations to join the UN and vote, or to leave the UN. No one is forcing you to be in the UN, after all. If it really is of that much concern, than take action, and stop whining.

Therefore there are resolutions being written...in the WRONG format....that aren't even debatable by the UN. Don't blame the UN....blame the ignorant people in it.
And you, with your vast experience with this game, have arrived at this conclusion how?

Who exactly defines the right format? Is it the right format when they follow the suggestions posted by UN Forum regular Sophista, one of "the ignorant people in it"? Or perhaps when they study the extensive guidelines posted by UN Forum regular Mikitivity, also one of "the ignorant people in it"? Maybe it comes from reading the list of Bad Examples and the reasons they are Bad that were posted by NationStates Game Mod Cogitation, yet another one of "the ignorant people in it"? Actually, I have my own theory on what constitutes "the ignorant people" who post in the UN forum. Guess what? You made the list.

Oh, and by the way ... everything in the UN is debatable in the UN forum. You just have to care enough to show up.

And you, with your vast experience with this game, have arrived at this conclusion how?

Who exactly defines the right format? Is it the right format when they follow the suggestions posted by UN Forum regular Sophista, one of "the ignorant people in it"? Or perhaps when they study the extensive guidelines posted by UN Forum regular Mikitivity, also one of "the ignorant people in it"? Maybe it comes from reading the list of Bad Examples and the reasons they are Bad that were posted by NationStates Game Mod Cogitation, yet another one of "the ignorant people in it"? Actually, I have my own theory on what constitutes "the ignorant people" who post in the UN forum. Guess what? You made the list.

Oh, and by the way ... everything in the UN is debatable in the UN forum. You just have to care enough to show up.


Exactly. Either show up or shut up.

If you think the UN only supports liberal nations, than get more conservative nations to join. Maybe the majority of people are liberal. Certainly the majority of UN nations are, so it's only natural that most resolutions are progressive. That's how democracy works. The only way to change that is to either get more conservative nations to join the UN and vote, or to leave the UN. No one is forcing you to be in the UN, after all. If it really is of that much concern, than take action, and stop whining.

Thank you for the advice. I don't feel like explaining again why I do not want to leave the UN but I am taking action. So far by taking this action, I've gotten a load of crap. I proposed a resolution and everybody thinks it doesn't work.

So far by taking this action, I've gotten a load of crap. I proposed a resolution and everybody thinks it doesn't work.
Y'know, that's actually a good sign. People are willing to read your work and discuss it with you. Think about it for a minute - these people are willing to tell you their objections, in hopes that their feedback will help you - yes, you - craft a better resolution. One that has a chance of passing.

Sure, there are a bunch of assholes who post here irregularly. There are also a bunch of dedicated students of government and diplomacy - left, right, and center - who will take the time to give you responsible and reasonable critiques. We all want better proposals, but they've got to pass to mean anything. Passage means compromise. Compromise means adjustments to your original thesis. Hardly any of them pass in their original form.

Work with us. We'll work with you.


The Conglomerated Oligarcy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States
not a liberal nation

Thank you for the advice. I don't feel like explaining again why I do not want to leave the UN but I am taking action. So far by taking this action, I've gotten a load of crap. I proposed a resolution and everybody thinks it doesn't work.

At least people have paid enough attention to give you crap. Like I said, the only way to shift the balance of power in the UN towards the right is to get more conservative nations to join. I don't know why I'm telling you this, as I'm a liberal extremist, and I RP a liberal extremist nation, so it's really in my best interest for you to just leave, from a competitive viewpoint. But back to the point. The UN will continue to be somewhat liberal until more conservative nations join to balance it out. It's as simple as that.

OOC: Was about to start complaining about being a socialist nation, not a liberal nation, until I read the definition of 'liberal' being used.

IC: If people are complaining, then at least their not ignoring you. Some of the best fun in the UN can come from reasoned debates. I remember the first time I put up the draft to Habeas Corpus (which will be submitted again this week) I had a very long, and entirely clear-headed, debate with someone from the complete opposite political viewpoint.
While we never were able to agree - there were some points I was not prepared to compromise with - we left the debate in good spirits.

I would also avoid lumping the 'liberals' together. Aside from the fact that I am a socialist, I am in favour of abortion legalisation and euthanasia, but I voted against those resolutions. Why? Partly because of the loopholes you could drive a semi trailer through, but mainly because I did not consider them worthy of consideration by the UN.

From the desk of Premier Alec Mannerheim-

I agree. The UN is far too left-wing. Sevaris is an overall centrist nation, we believe some liberal ideals (abortion, tc.) while espousing many conservative ones as well (Marriage is between a man and a woman, less govt., etc.). I have often thought of leaving the UN, for, if we give it any more power, we might have global USSR.

we are a moral democracy so we are planning bans on gay marrige and abortion and all that kind of crap. yes we are left wing but in RL im a die hard republican!!m i like the way this game lets me be who im really not in RL!!

And you, with your vast experience with this game, have arrived at this conclusion how?

Who exactly defines the right format? Is it the right format when they follow the suggestions posted by UN Forum regular Sophista, one of "the ignorant people in it"? Or perhaps when they study the extensive guidelines posted by UN Forum regular Mikitivity, also one of "the ignorant people in it"? Maybe it comes from reading the list of Bad Examples and the reasons they are Bad that were posted by NationStates Game Mod Cogitation, yet another one of "the ignorant people in it"? Actually, I have my own theory on what constitutes "the ignorant people" who post in the UN forum. Guess what? You made the list.

Oh, and by the way ... everything in the UN is debatable in the UN forum. You just have to care enough to show up.

Nice rationalization there, Fris....

The UN is simply another tyranical clique masquerading as a democratic institution. Look at it's body of laws and actions if there's any question.

It reminds me of nothing more than a snarky little cheerleader sisterhood, with "police power"...!!

It would be much more balanced if it had a veto wielding "benign dictator" than the IN-CROWD that is the present majority.

Of course "balance" would be interpreted as non-"human justice and goodie-goodiness for all", and therefore unacceptable.

There is no way around the tyrany of the majority in this body.

Perhaps someone of influence should propose that the "founding nation" (or erstwhile "universally trusted one") should hold moderation power over all "laws", past, present and future, so as to counter the immovable powerblock that is the present majority?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Very interesting that the "in-crowd" running this "dictatorship" consists of well over 10,000 voting nations. That's an awfully big elite to rail against.

I find it fascinating to ponder how 'tyranny of the majorty' works. I believe it means that the majority of people are advantaged over the minority who believe otherwise. What I find fascinating about this though is that the percieved answer to the 'tyranny of the majority' is to put someone in charge with the power to stop the majority view and enforce the minority one. Surely this would then be 'tyranny of the minority?'

Very interesting that the "in-crowd" running this "dictatorship" consists of well over 10,000 voting nations. That's an awfully big elite to rail against.

It's irrelevent the size or constituency of the majority.

My point is that it has no right to act as "one of us" (a nation) while calling itself a non-nation.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck,... it's a duck..!

It acts like a nation state,.. it's a nation state.

My boneheaded contention is that a nation can not give up it's nationality and sovereignty and still be called a nation. Period.

Our definitions of nation are simply, and fundamentally, at odds.

Once the UN is given "enforcement powers" and demands complience of it's "laws" of all members, it is a nation state. And as no nation can be "contained" within another nation as a subservient and retain it's "nationality", the UN becomes the de-facto "nation in fact".

So,.. we'll just have to disagree on that level,.. and we'll carry on with our digging of clams, and you will do whatever it is you occupy your day with....

:)

(( This basic definitional problem is precisely why the RL UN has no true enforment power, IMHO. It is intrinsically antithetical to any real nation. ))


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

So,.. we'll just have to disagree on that level
At this point, everyone who reads the UN forum knows that you are anti-UN. Is it absolutely necessary for you to spam every thread with the idea that you don't like it?

We get it. Now would you please move on?

At this point, everyone who reads the UN forum knows that you are anti-UN. Is it absolutely necessary for you to spam every thread with the idea that you don't like it?

We get it. Now would you please move on?

*snicker*
I was actually wondering the same thing.

I remember 10 years ago when they used to say, "September is hell month on the internet." It was when college kids would get their first internet account. And the few of them that weren't wasting their time hunting for internet porn, spent their time trolling all of the usenet groups.

At least NS2 might have fewer newbies thinking they are the first to raise tired old points when it is a pay site.

Eternal September is almost 15 years old - I mark it from the moment AOL went live.

At this point, everyone who reads the UN forum knows that you are anti-UN. Is it absolutely necessary for you to spam every thread with the idea that you don't like it?

We get it. Now would you please move on?

:)

Well put. There are actually those here who are not terminally hyper-legalistic in expressing themselves.

That's a good thing.

But...

Isn't each topic "It's own topic"?

Doesn't it deserve observance and comment, from all viewpoints?

If someone would "resolve" something that would respect national sovereignties, not abuse their fellow membership with culture-changing social steering through immoral laws (I'll get it for this one!), and actually promote cultural diversity through positive reinforcement and/or the use of truly voluntary physical force, I'd be more than happy to get fully behind it..!

I'm not acutally UN,.. I'm against the policy that the UN has any enforcement power other than that given through voluntary cooperation of a non-forced voluntary membership. (The UN membership IS FORCED to comply with UN laws or face "excommunication". Simple as that.)

This is what keeps me from joining the otherwise worthy endeavor that SHOULD be the UN.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

At least NS2 might have fewer newbies thinking they are the first to raise tired old points when it is a pay site.

"Tired old points" come back because they are meaningful to some folks. :)

I've no illusions of changing the UN. It doesn't want to change, and doesn't need to change, so it's not going to change.

But your dismissal of salient observations regarding your organization's "product" simply illustrates the view of the UN aparachik toward other viewpoints, and it's exclusionary nature.

Although,.. I *DO* appreciate the opportunity to continue being annoying to the true-believers of the Mommy-State amongst you...! :)

Thanks gang...


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I'm not acutally UN,.. I'm against the policy that the UN has any enforcement power other than that given through voluntary cooperation of a non-forced voluntary membership. (The UN membership IS FORCED to comply with UN laws or face "excommunication". Simple as that.)

This is what keeps me from joining the otherwise worthy endeavor that SHOULD be the UN.
If the real-world UN had this level of power and control, I'd be right beside you protesting and pointing out the silliness. But this isn't the real world.

In this world, the UN has those powers because that's how Max set it up. It's not because we chose it. It's hard-coded, and Max and [violet] aren't going to change it. Fighting to make the UN non-mandatory is like sweeping back the tide. It's pointless, and bothers the other sunbathers. We get annoyed because everyone with a join date of 60 days ago or less makes the same argument, and it always ends the same way. ALWAYS.

It's a simple game with simple rules. Live with it or move on to something more complex. We're doing the best we can within the framework we have. OK?

If the real-world UN had this level of power and control, I'd be right beside you protesting and pointing out the silliness. But this isn't the real world.

In this world, the UN has those powers because that's how Max set it up. It's not because we chose it. It's hard-coded, and Max and [violet] aren't going to change it. Fighting to make the UN non-mandatory is like sweeping back the tide. It's pointless, and bothers the other sunbathers. We get annoyed because everyone with a join date of 60 days ago or less makes the same argument, and it always ends the same way. ALWAYS.

It's a simple game with simple rules. Live with it or move on to something more complex. We're doing the best we can within the framework we have. OK?

The good people of Iakeokeo would like to offer Fris the keys to the nation of Iakeokeo, which will get him or her as much Poi, clamdip, and really good beer as we have to offer, in perpetuity, forever and ever, amen..!! :)

I am enjoying pointing out the goofiness of this system, and don't really mind the utter futility of changing it.

There really should be a place in some "authorized" forum for federations such as I would like to see.

I suppose I could actually DO that, but to be honest I'm not sure I want to put in the time. :)

Anyway,.. thanks again for your wisdom and sense of fun that makes these discussions interesting..! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

"Tired old points" come back because they are meaningful to some folks. :)


And yet, that doesn't change the fact that they are "tired old points" that many people (myself included) are sick and tired of hearing. At least you understand that you are beating a dead horse, in fact by posting basically the same thing in every topic I'd go so far as to say that you're beating that dead horse like a government mule.

We the people of Chinese Greenland believe in the full sovereignty of communities, and in the inheirantly corruptable nature of international governance. While we endorse a global forum to resolve disputes between nations, we do not plan on allowing external forces to govern the community that we work hard to perserve and nurture.

Signed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Chinese Greenland,

Prime Minister Olav Kong

We the people of Chinese Greenland believe in the full sovereignty of communities, and in the inheirantly corruptable nature of international governance. While we endorse a global forum to resolve disputes between nations, we do not plan on allowing external forces to govern the community that we work hard to perserve and nurture.

Signed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Chinese Greenland,

Prime Minister Olav Kong

Well put.

My people agree.

The UN cares not a whit about you, or the fact that you and other's like you feel this way.

I am considering forming an alternative to the UN:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350225

Do you think this might be worth pursuing..? :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

And yet, that doesn't change the fact that they are "tired old points" that many people (myself included) are sick and tired of hearing. At least you understand that you are beating a dead horse, in fact by posting basically the same thing in every topic I'd go so far as to say that you're beating that dead horse like a government mule.

I really do have only one "objection" to anything that the UN does, which explains the mono-mania of my (rather idiotically persistent) presence on these boards..! :)

..and yes,.. the dead horse IS a government mule. Really expensive and yet, so very useless..!

I really DO like the sound of the "Flibbleites", by the way..!

Excellent name..! :) Sounds like a fun place to visit..!

OH YEAH,... Does anyone know why the threads are not "properly threaded" (hierarchical threading) on these forums..? It makes them VERY difficult to deal with after they grow to more than a handful of pages...


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

You know, this "the UN violates sovereignty" circle jerk is getting old. The UN always will take away sovereignty, and everyone who joins it knows that. If you're afraid of that, don't join. We all know you don't like it, end of story. Dialogue like this only clutters the forum, and detracts from the progression of more important debates.

I am considering forming an alternative to the UN:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350225

Do you think this might be worth pursuing..?


Not a good idea. One UN is quite enough, as you of all people should know, and forming parallel UN's is not something the mods exactly approve of.

And quite frankly, if you do not wish to be in the UN, we really don't need to hear about it. We don't really care, and like Sophista said, it clutters the forum. If you do not wish to be in the UN, you have no business in this particular forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I am considering forming an alternative to the UN:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350225

Do you think this might be worth pursuing..?




Not a good idea. One UN is quite enough, as you of all people should know, and forming parallel UN's is not something the mods exactly approve of.

And quite frankly, if you do not wish to be in the UN, we really don't need to hear about it. We don't really care, and like Sophista said, it clutters the forum. If you do not wish to be in the UN, you have no business in this particular forum.

I have to chuckle at the arrogance. Which is not exactly surprising. :)

One UN (as constituted) is by it's own definition absolutely all that would be acceptable to it's member province-states.

It simply points our, once again, that the UN considers itself to be the great mommy-state that holds all power and legitimacy to itself.

The occassional posting pointing out this arrogance is too much to handle for the delicate ears of the members of the UN, who would rather not deal with such blasphemy.

By the way,.. are the "mods" gods of some sort, that when they frown, the dissenting voices are silenced?

Well,.. YES, actually..! They ARE..! :)

And they are free to do their will, as are all gods, as am I to do mine.

Should I be "taken up", as it were, and silenced from this world, would the world be a richer, more varied and interesting place..?

Possibly,.. but that's not for me to judge.

Happiness, love and wisdom to you. Aloha..! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Proposing changes to game mechanics isn't allowed because it has to be coded into the game and therefore probably won't happen.

The occassional posting pointing out this arrogance is too much to handle for the delicate ears of the members of the UN, who would rather not deal with such blasphemy.Your problem here is that it's not "occaisional". It's incessant. And it gets old, really fast.

Proposing changes to game mechanics isn't allowed because it has to be coded into the game and therefore probably won't happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The occassional posting pointing out this arrogance is too much to handle for the delicate ears of the members of the UN, who would rather not deal with such blasphemy.

Your problem here is that it's not "occaisional". It's incessant. And it gets old, really fast.

Then don't listen, doof...!

The way these forums are constructed (non-nested threading) makes it very difficult to use them in a way that promotes actual discussion. And you're always free to simply ignore that which you find offensive.

What I say, as what anyone says, has exactly the merit that it's given by those who find it useful or not useful.

Don't find it useful? Don't freakin' listen.

I rather thought that that's what the much touted liberal free-speech principle was all about..?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Your problem here is that it's not "occaisional". It's incessant. And it gets old, really fast.

OOC: He'll eventually get bored and leave. But he'll never get the point of the UN in this game.

But yeah, he should limit his plug for his anti-UN league to like one post per day. Same as the regional adverts on feeder boards.

Let's hope... It's kind of hard to "not listen" when his posts take up a large portion of the page...

Can a mod close this before one of us gets a warning for flaming someone of the other party? I'm afraid I've crossed the line already...

Then don't listen, doof...!

The way these forums are constructed (non-nested threading) makes it very difficult to use them in a way that promotes actual discussion. And you're always free to simply ignore that which you find offensive.

What I say, as what anyone says, has exactly the merit that it's given by those who find it useful or not useful.

Don't find it useful? Don't freakin' listen.

I rather thought that that's what the much touted liberal free-speech principle was all about..?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Problem is it is mention so often, with the same points, that it gets to be like SPAM, even if that is not the intention.

We the Armed Republic of Dunlow hereby resign from the United Nations effective immediately.

While the government of Dunlow believes in free trade of goods and services, we don't feel it necesary to have our rules and values governed by outside influences like the UN, which has proven to be painfully liberal in all its decisions.

Our citizens are capapble of making their own decisions and the government prides itself in staying out of their business.

From this day forth, the Armed Republic of Dunlow will no longer be forced to follow the ideals of those who do not share our values.

Good day to you all

Somewhere in one of the many offices in Sophista's sprawling foreign ministry, a phone rings. An employee quickly scurries over to answer it, and after listening a few moments, nods and hangs up. She proceeds to walk back to her computer and enter a handful of quick keystrokes before returning to her normal work. In the ministry's nerve center, a display in some section of the monstrous HUD that dominates the far wall, the Disgruntled Because of Soveriegnty counter clicks up one. No on seems to care or notice.

Don't find it useful? Don't freakin' listen.


I've tried and I've yet to be sucessful, due in part to the fact that you seem to post in every topic (at least the ones I've read).

" Right here we go then, I suppose ... "

Or

* The Rep of Komokom picks up his frying-pan of shut-it already.

Post # 1 ) Chinese Greenland, I ask you and others to please reflect on those members who try to use this forum for its descriptor. And not for a fleeting 15 posts of fame.

Post # 2 ) Iakeokeo, I am almost glad you have finally found the right Forum for that. Thank the non-existing-god-head/s for a small mercy ... Of course, need-less to say I think your deserving a slap for presuming to know not only my mind but the minds of all U.N. members too.

Post # 3 ) Sophista, I agree for the most part, except that at least this time round its a circle jerk rather then the usual orgy. The differance in the orgy being more dissent, more ignorance, and like its more common analogy to the word, more moaning.

Post # 4 ) Hersfold, I agree with you too, although maybe Iakeokeo should remember they can make an off-site forum or a region even, as long as they refrain from posting about it here on the U.N. Forum as a topic or try a thread take-over.

Post # 5 ) Iakeokeo, after reading that first line in your post I had to chuckle at the hipocritical nature of it, myself. Further, if you insist on pushing this as frequently as you have done so already, you will quickly discover the wrath of the equal but opposite force, as it may well does seem you have already, I note.

Might I add, stop calling the U.N. " the great mommy-state " as I certainly well see it as an obtuse flame-bait if ever there was. Keep the name calling for what-ever other online activities you persue.

Reading further down, I 'm not even going to touch the badly veiled anti-Moderation Staff comments you have made.

Suffice to say " No Point " to you, I'm afraid.

Post # 6 ) Unfree People, moot point here, its been said, but it seems reality is a unknown value in this delusory equation ... Further, its does get very old, very quickly.

And it does not age well.

Post # 7 ) Iakeokeo, I say again, desist from the name calling, please, starting a post with " Then don't listen, doof ... ! " is not going to present a very good on-going case for your arguments. Further, if people do not rally to your " cause " nor give your arguments, or you for that matter, the credibility you think your arguments and yourself deserve, I would say, do not be so quick to blame the Forum for that ...

Further, you seem to say it is the fault of the forums that people ignore things, then you go on to tell us not to listen. Don't worry, I'm sure many already have, your doing a very good job of running a cone of silence around you. What-ever makes you happy, I suppose ...

Oh, and this is not a free-speech environment. If you actually display a moment of civility some-one might actually impart with you the rationality and history of that.

Post # 8 ) Yes Mikitivity, but even so it does not belong here. Such groups I think use another / other forums ... Thank-good-ness.

Post # 9 ) I fail to see where Hersfold. And after certain ... comments made about the Moderation Staff already ... well, I don't think too many sleep-less nights are in order, yet.

Post # 10 ) I think, Xerxes855, you have almost hit the nail on the head. We might just hope it to be the last one on the coffin too.

Post # 11 ) Yes Fibble, it does border almost on the hijack stage, does it not ...

I fail to see where Hersfold. And after certain ... comments made about the Moderation Staff already ... well, I don't think too many sleep-less nights are in order, yet.


Thanks.

I'd advise all forward thinking nations to leave the UN as soon as possible. Given the current track of legislation, the UN will soon turn the world into a global USSR.

"Do not give them the pleasure of leaving. Resist. Even passively. Vote NAY to world government resolutions."

I'd advise all forward thinking nations to leave the UN as soon as possible. Given the current track of legislation, the UN will soon turn the world into a global USSR.

Congratulations. You are a fucking moron.

Congratulations. You are a fucking moron.

Congratulations, you've earned yourself a warning. Any more like that and you'll get a minimum 3 day forumban.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

I'd advise all forward thinking nations to leave the UN as soon as possible. Given the current track of legislation, the UN will soon turn the world into a global USSR.

We were all aware of what the UN could do when we joined. If we are willing to accept the risk of being subjected to a bad resolution, then so be it. If it's really bad, we can always leave, then come back after a day to ensure that the resolution would not effect us. If you do not want to be in the UN, no one is forcing you to join. But please do not ask us to leave - it's done so many times, it REALLY gets monotonus.

I'd advise all forward thinking nations to leave the UN as soon as possible. Given the current track of legislation, the UN will soon turn the world into a global USSR.

You don't like it? Get out.

I have now merged all the generic 'OMG THE UN SUCKS' threads into one, so that those who don't care about your opinions can go about their business without having to pick through dozens of your threads. The next 'I hate the UN' thread that is posted here, I'm locking without notice.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

I have now merged all the generic 'OMG THE UN SUCKS' threads into one, so that those who don't care about your opinions can go about their business without having to pick through dozens of your threads. The next 'I hate the UN' thread that is posted here, I'm locking without notice.

Forum Moderator

Wonderful idea! :)

Thank you.

Shouldn't that be: liek OMG teh UN suXX0rz!!!1!!1one!!!

(Yes, this IS a cheap shot at the intelligence of the UN_Sucks crowd. Why do you ask?)

Bah. So basically this makes it easy for the socialist elite here to ignore other peoples opinions by just cramming all dissent into a 'designated free speech area'. Great idea. Now I have to post in one thread with ultraconservatives who base their dislike of the NS UN on their opposition to the RL UN :headbang:

Mikitivities gloating says enough I think.

Bah. So basically this makes it easy for the socialist elite here to ignore other peoples opinions by just cramming all dissent into a 'designated free speech area'. Great idea. Now I have to post in one thread with ultraconservatives who base their dislike of the NS UN on their opposition to the RL UN :headbang:

Mikitivities gloating says enough I think.

Socialist elite?
What the hell?

The reason your comments are often ignored is because they don't make sense. You keep hinting about about socialist conspiracy, and I've yet to see such a creature. Do you mind just calling it quits on your witch hunt, because it is crap like that *that* helped prompt the merging of these threads.


What you call gloating is my acknowledgement that many of the "I hate the UN" posts are really pointless.

Example:
Do you like goth / industrial music? No, I didn't think so. So what is about the most pointless thing you could do? I don't know ... maybe paying to go to an goth event like Medusa (a wonderful Dutch event BTW) or to an industrial club like Cyberia (which Case is one of the best promoters in Europe) and do nothing but complain about how immature goths are and how you hate the music. Do you really think the club owners are going to want you there? Oh, they'll take your money ... but they certainly aren't going to roll out the red carpet.

The UN is optional. Period. Not participating in it or constantly going off on some damn witch hunt is no different than a frat daddy walking into a goth club and complaing all night, "But why won't you play some Britney Spears, you play all that crappy electronic and techno music!". It is pointless.

There is a reason NS has a forum for International Incidents and a separate one for the UN. Personally be glad that anti-UN crap is merged into a thread and just not given its own forum.

Rather than waste a good bit of UN time, how about we convert this thread into something that actually means something?
I suggest a we hate Cabbage thread...or how about Marmite? Or both at once even.......

Rather than waste a good bit of UN time, how about we convert this thread into something that actually means something?
I suggest a we hate Cabbage thread...or how about Marmite? Or both at once even.......
Yes! Marmite is evil, unnatural, and WRONG! :p

I have now merged all the generic 'OMG THE UN SUCKS' threads into one, so that those who don't care about your opinions can go about their business without having to pick through dozens of your threads. The next 'I hate the UN' thread that is posted here, I'm locking without notice.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Hmmmm,... and how are you going to stop me from commenting on a UN relate topic as a subpost..?

Oh,... your not,.. other than banning me entirely.

Is there a place (some general forum) for discussions of UN atrocities to nationalities, sorvereignty and just plain common sense..?


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Socialist elite?
What the hell?

The reason your comments are often ignored is because they don't make sense. You keep hinting about about socialist conspiracy, and I've yet to see such a creature. Do you mind just calling it quits on your witch hunt, because it is crap like that *that* helped prompt the merging of these threads.


What you call gloating is my acknowledgement that many of the "I hate the UN" posts are really pointless.

Example:
Do you like goth / industrial music? No, I didn't think so. So what is about the most pointless thing you could do? I don't know ... maybe paying to go to an goth event like Medusa (a wonderful Dutch event BTW) or to an industrial club like Cyberia (which Case is one of the best promoters in Europe) and do nothing but complain about how immature goths are and how you hate the music. Do you really think the club owners are going to want you there? Oh, they'll take your money ... but they certainly aren't going to roll out the red carpet.

The UN is optional. Period. Not participating in it or constantly going off on some damn witch hunt is no different than a frat daddy walking into a goth club and complaing all night, "But why won't you play some Britney Spears, you play all that crappy electronic and techno music!". It is pointless.

There is a reason NS has a forum for International Incidents and a separate one for the UN. Personally be glad that anti-UN crap is merged into a thread and just not given its own forum.

I don't see any witchhunt..!

The UN is run as a leftist cheerleader-squad which has as it's basis the subjugation and homogenization of it's members "nationalities" into the great super Mommy-state.

The non-UN nations can only comment (as long as the UN allows them to) on the UN's whacky actions, pointing out what we might see as "a bit strange".

I would think that the UN would actively invite the frat-boys into the hall, and pound the living CRAP out of them.

Who are the "cops"...!?



-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Is there a place (some general forum) for discussions of UN atrocities to nationalities, sorvereignty and just plain common sense..?
Let's see. You've posted in about half of the topics on the current UN Forum front page and gotten negative reactions from all of the regulars and quite a few occasional visitors.
You've posted a topic in International Incidents (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350225) where such things should probably be. No one responded or cared.
You've raised it in the General Forum in another half-dozen topics, and the UN-hating aspect was pretty much ignored.
You've ranted in Moderation Forum (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349942) where none of the mods saw fit to provide you with more information than the UN Forum members.I'd say you've pretty well exhausted your options. Why don't you give it a rest for a while?

Socialist elite?
What the hell?

The reason your comments are often ignored is because they don't make sense. You keep hinting about about socialist conspiracy, and I've yet to see such a creature. Do you mind just calling it quits on your witch hunt, because it is crap like that *that* helped prompt the merging of these threads.


What you call gloating is my acknowledgement that many of the "I hate the UN" posts are really pointless.

Example:
Do you like goth / industrial music? No, I didn't think so. So what is about the most pointless thing you could do? I don't know ... maybe paying to go to an goth event like Medusa (a wonderful Dutch event BTW) or to an industrial club like Cyberia (which Case is one of the best promoters in Europe) and do nothing but complain about how immature goths are and how you hate the music. Do you really think the club owners are going to want you there? Oh, they'll take your money ... but they certainly aren't going to roll out the red carpet.

The UN is optional. Period. Not participating in it or constantly going off on some damn witch hunt is no different than a frat daddy walking into a goth club and complaing all night, "But why won't you play some Britney Spears, you play all that crappy electronic and techno music!". It is pointless.

There is a reason NS has a forum for International Incidents and a separate one for the UN. Personally be glad that anti-UN crap is merged into a thread and just not given its own forum.

There is no witchhunt. It is perfectly legal to organise oneself and that it also precisely what you and your friends have done. Congratulations. At least I understand that you are quite a regular user (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showuser=235) in a forum hosting "A working group for the formulation and examination of UN Policy within an anticapitalist framework" (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showforum=11) complete with a list of delegates who might be 'helpful' (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=444).

Are you saying that the UN is a goth club? Are you saying that the UN, per definition, is a "liberal" (read: socialist.) organisation and that everyone who does not like it should simply go away and leave you be? I find that notion closed-minded and respectless. Truly, for your arrogance to have grown to such heights you must have a very comfortable position indeed.

I do not hate the UN. This is why I am really not up for putting a sticker on everyone who has comments saying "lunatic, ignore." with a thread title like this.

I would like to work along with other people in the UN for good resolutions. (Including intelligent people like you.) However, this is impossible because the NS UN has become the game of the extreme-left and I have heard nothing but hostility from them.

So really. I am not leaving because I do not want to give your kind the satisfaction of doing so. I will stay and occasionally comment upon the latest sillyness for as long as the "regulars" like you really prefer to be left alone instead of, say, working with me and others who have proposals.

Also, esteemed UN delegates, I would like to say for the record that the Dutch Democratic Republic does not endorse Britney Spears in any way. Let it also be said that I have never argued for a seperate forum for anti-UN comments or any such nonsense.

I would like to work along with other people in the UN for good resolutions. (Including intelligent people like you.) However, this is impossible because the NS UN has become the game of the extreme-left and I have heard nothing but hostility from them.

The dialogue you seek isn't happening because your commentary always revolves around the same point: the UN shouldn't tell governments what to do within their own borders. While that statement does have merit in certain cases, you can't apply it across the board to all resolutions.

I'm all for people keeping an eye out for proposals that are flagrant violations of a nation's soveriegn rule, such as gambling proposals, gun control proposals, cloning, or similar issues. However, some resolutions like the recent whaling legislation are legitimate in their need to step on a few toes. If we made resolutions optional or otherwise gutted their enforcement mechanisms, nations who were in violation could go on their merry way, and the problem wouldn't be solved.

Our focus, then, should be on seperating those resolutions which have a legitimate reason to trump a nation's government, and those which are simply one state attempting to pass it's agenda on another. Granted, there will disagreement on which is which depending on a nation's particular political agenda, and that's why we discuss them. Note I used the word "discuss" and not "argue like children about why the UN is bad."

The dialogue you seek isn't happening because your commentary always revolves around the same point: the UN shouldn't tell governments what to do within their own borders. While that statement does have merit in certain cases, you can't apply it across the board to all resolutions.

I'm all for people keeping an eye out for proposals that are flagrant violations of a nation's soveriegn rule, such as gambling proposals, gun control proposals, cloning, or similar issues. However, some resolutions like the recent whaling legislation are legitimate in their need to step on a few toes. If we made resolutions optional or otherwise gutted their enforcement mechanisms, nations who were in violation could go on their merry way, and the problem wouldn't be solved.

Our focus, then, should be on seperating those resolutions which have a legitimate reason to trump a nation's government, and those which are simply one state attempting to pass it's agenda on another. Granted, there will disagreement on which is which depending on a nation's particular political agenda, and that's why we discuss them. Note I used the word "discuss" and not "argue like children about why the UN is bad."

I opposed the whaling legislation simply because that is what my nation is like. Its In Character. What bothered me about it enough to actually take my time and declare my point of view is the Total Ban element which IMO really is absurd. That the thing cannot apply to vessels registered under non-UN nations is, of course, the loophole towards sanity. I might have agreed with quotas, but hey. *shrugs*

I'd say things like "the 40 hour workweek", "Illegal Logging" and its "protect the trees" cousins, "Abortion Rights" (even though I am pro-choice) are PRECISELY one state attempting to pass it's agenda on another. This does not seem to bother anyone here though. The more invasive it is to, say, liberal-democratic capitalist nations the louder the cheers are or so it seems.

I have no problem whatsoever with the FGM resolution or the Needle Sharing Prevention one or the Public Domain one. I vote for about 40% (rough estimate, the number is falling) of the resolutions that actually reach quorum. The UN can do many, many things. Just look at the RL UN. Food programmes, awareness campaigns, promoting human rights, etc etc. I think the NS UN can even go a little further because of its special powers. Its the nature of the resolutions and the complete and utter arrogance that some of the people here display. I am not on a permanent anti-UN crusade like some of the people in this thread and that is why it pisses me off that all dissent is limited to one forum thread.

I'd say things like "the 40 hour workweek", "Illegal Logging" and its "protect the trees" cousins, "Abortion Rights" (even though I am pro-choice) are PRECISELY one state attempting to pass it's agenda on another. This does not seem to bother anyone here though. The more invasive it is to, say, liberal-democratic capitalist nations the louder the cheers are or so it seems.

That, generally, is a fault in those who make the proposals. A great deal of those proposals come from people who rarely, if ever, visit the forums, and ignore the sentiments raised by forum veterans. In theory, those laws are in violation of the Rights and Duties resolution, but I've yet to see a moderator comment on how that can affect proposals in queue, or resolutions on the floor. Believe me, I agree, both in character and out of, that the resolutions you cited were beyond the scope of what the UN should be handling. Again, it's an issue with people who don't read the forums and don't respect the general rules we've come to govern by.

It's obvious that emnity exists between yourself and other members of this forum, but I'm willing to bet that a great deal of that is misdirected. I'm not sure how to resolve those rifts, but I know that this is a good step along those lines. If you coin your opposition as being directed towards bad uses of UN power, and not UN power on the whole, you'll find people being more receptive to that dialogue.

Are you saying that the UN is a goth club? Are you saying that the UN, per definition, is a "liberal" (read: socialist.) organisation and that everyone who does not like it should simply go away and leave you be? I find that notion closed-minded and respectless. Truly, for your arrogance to have grown to such heights you must have a very comfortable position indeed.


::sigh::
You seem to have a very hard time understanding a simple example.

Go back, remove the words goth and replace them with the words country and western. Same problem.

NationStates has specific forums, designed to meet the needs of various aspects of the game. One of which is the "UN" flavoured topics. Notice it is not the "International Organizations" forum, but the UN forum. While UN observers are welcomed here, anti-UN posts and leagues aren't appreciated when they begin to dominate the forum. The moderators have been consistent in their decision to hold this line.

I have a perfectly good understanding of what is say an "International Incident" and what is a discussion about "United Nations" related business. I'm not about to have any sympathies for any non-UN fan bursting in and claiming that the people of this forum aren't listening to them.

"YOU ARE ALL SOCIALISTS!
YOU ARE ARROGANT SOCIALISTS AND CONTROL THE UN!"

"Hey, why aren't you listening to me? WHY? WHY!"


Amazing!
And people aren't listening to you after days of this?
Amazing!

Frisbeeteria. Everything about his nation speaks: Completely Corporate Paradise!
Guess I need to turn issues back on and get away from ' Left-Leaning College State' then. Goddamn UN resolutions.

I like Knootoss. I like Lacomb. I even occasionally like Iakeokeo. (heh). Simple secret for me: strip away the rhetoric and look at the underlying values. If there's anything there, work with it. If not, move on. It's possible for everything, save possibly 'the UN SuX0rs!' crowd, to have some redeeming value. Even if it only serves to clarify your position of opposition.


Why can't we all just get along? ::grins widely::

Guess I need to turn issues back on and get away from ' Left-Leaning College State' then.

I like Knootoss. I like Lacomb. I even occasionally like Iakeokeo. (heh). Simple secret for me: strip away the rhetoric and look at the underlying values. If there's anything there, work with it. If not, move on. It's possible for everything, save possibly 'the UN SuX0rs!' crowd, to have some redeeming value. Even if it clarifies your position of opposition.

Why can't we all just get along? ::grin widely::

Actually a few of the UN SuX0rs have been added to my JOLT killfilter, and a few others are only a few posts away. *shrug*

* Reads thread since last night, makes following comments :

1) Myrth, thank-you.

* Insert * I Will Kill * face.

2) Next person to imply that I, as a member of the U.N. am a socialist, will get a firm but diplomatic slap.

Thank you for your time, :D

I count my nation among the small list of nations that believes that nations that have no intention of ever participating by expressing their views and being willing to listen to other nation's views, would be better suited leaving the UN and just picking and choosing their own domestic policies.

So then you believe in open-mindedness, that all points of view should be openly considered, whether they agree with your position or not, on the basis that such a point of view is presented?

Just clarifying the point, wouldn't want a charge of hypocracy leveled now...


The UN is a huge, sprawling bureaucracy, just like it is in RL. The difference here is that staying with or leaving the NSUN really doesn't do much, where staying with or leaving the RLUN can have drastic effects on one's economy, particularly with emergent nations with limited economic ability.

Does that mean the UN is "bad"? No. It is a place where one can propose laws of various types intended to "make the world a better place". It is in that statement of intent all the trouble lies as well - what is "good" for one nation may not be "good" for another. What one desires, another might not. Each topic becomes a field of incongruity, where each side should be able to make it's case, be heard fairly, and some meaningful middle ground discovered.

RLUN, this doesn't happen much, politics being what it is. Silly arguements become power struggles of "epic" proportions - particularly if you're involved - and decisions such as whether to use blue or black ink gain so much emotional content as to bring nations close to blows.

Heck, if they were allowed the level of activity the Japanese parliament gets, there would be blood flowing out the front door.

The problem the NSUN suffers is elitism, and a lack of nations which are conservative AND willing to stay in for the long haul AND to fight down "bad" legislation to the bitter end. Instead, many have adopted the "walk away" mentality, which while it may suit the individual nation, does no good for the world as a whole. After all, it is not agreement with those we agree with that shows us to be civilized, it is our willingness to hear out those we do not agree with. "Open minded" is truly a laudable goal to prance out - but a very tough one to maintain, particularly when you do not agree, and your "entire world" revolves around a resolution or an idea or - whatever.

Is there a solution? Participation by all would be one. Some sort of reward for being part of the UN - regardless of measures passed - such as a boost to economy (business +) due to greater trade availability might encourage more nations of the conservative bent to get involved and stay involved.

Why? Because the other solution is the "voting with the feet" measure, and that has already shown itself to be the poorer of the two, for in doing so, the nation which walks robs the rest of what could have been an enlightening point of view.

Thank you.

Sinjin Lefkowitz al-Din, Sultan and State of Vastiva.

The problem the NSUN suffers is elitism, and a lack of nations which are conservative AND willing to stay in for the long haul AND to fight down "bad" legislation to the bitter end. Instead, many have adopted the "walk away" mentality, which while it may suit the individual nation, does no good for the world as a whole.


emphasis added

Well, I wouldn't say they've "adopted" the 'walk away attitude' as much as they've had it "shoved down their throats upon penalty of 'stupidness'".

At least, that's MY take on the UN scene.

I'd say things like "the 40 hour workweek", "Illegal Logging" and its "protect the trees" cousins, "Abortion Rights" (even though I am pro-choice) are PRECISELY one state attempting to pass it's agenda on another. This does not seem to bother anyone here though. The more invasive it is to, say, liberal-democratic capitalist nations the louder the cheers are or so it seems.
Um. I'm in the ACA, though not a signatory to IFTA or CACE (for reasons that are long-winded and really quite dull). I supported NONE of the above resolutions, not even 40 hr work week. Only the aforementioned is a 'left-wing' resolution. I am arguably the most active ACA member in the UN forum. Where are these extreme-left types who dominate the UN, hmm? Who else is active and producing resolutions? Komokom? Er... rampant capitalist. Sophista? Er... pretty centrist, I'd say, plus voted against all the resolutions you mentioned. Mikitivity? Looks centre-left, I'd say. Note that: a) he's been around a while now and hasn't joined the ACA despite knowing a hell of a lot about us; and b) Many nations appear on our forums who AREN'T ANTI-CAPITALIST. I believe one of them used to be you.

Look, I'm aware of some horrible enmity between you and older members of the ACA. I don't know the details and don't wish to get involved. I would happily RP with you (if I could be bothered to RP!) and wish we'd encountered each other in the UN on a less bitter topic. However, it's lazy to describe the UN as being dominated by 'socialists' and the 'extreme left'. Believe me, the ACA would be crowing if we'd managed that.
I am not on a permanent anti-UN crusade like some of the people in this thread and that is why it pisses me off that all dissent is limited to one forum thread.
I recognise that but I think the reason for limiting at the moment is the sheer volume of disparate whingers clogging up the board. many complaints are simple misunderstandings of the game mechanics.
Well, I wouldn't say they've "adopted" the 'walk away attitude' as much as they've had it "shoved down their throats upon penalty of 'stupidness'".

At least, that's MY take on the UN scene.
With all due respect - and I know we've discussed this earlier - I don't believe this is the case. Many nations will whinge, get told the situation re game mechanics, whinge again, have the situation repeated, whinge again, receive a snarky comment from an exasperated veteran, whinge again, then get told they may as well leave if they can't accept the nature of the game, leave, whinge about being forced to leave.

I don't know why those on the left have less problem with the nature of the game; I'm genuinely puzzled by this discrepancy.

I would love some conservative or free market stuff to come up. It's so much more fun fighting against what you don't like than for what you do like.

With all due respect - and I know we've discussed this earlier - I don't believe this is the case. Many nations will whinge, get told the situation re game mechanics, whinge again, have the situation repeated, whinge again, receive a snarky comment from an exasperated veteran, whinge again, then get told they may as well leave if they can't accept the nature of the game, leave, whinge about being forced to leave.

I don't know why those on the left have less problem with the nature of the game; I'm genuinely puzzled by this discrepancy.

I would love some conservative or free market stuff to come up. It's so much more fun fighting against what you don't like than for what you do like.

I understand. I like to think of it as less of a "liberals" are to blame or "conservatives" are to blame as much as I like to think of it as a nearly impossible situation. I mean, "conservatives" are in a Catch-22 if they don't follow a relaxed approach, or perhaps a little more of what I've seen, if the people telling them what to do don't relax.

At least this is the case, I think, with newer member nations who probably haven't read the previous resolutions, FAQ, game rules. Hence we get these new I hate the UN threads, when these nations are placed unexpectedly in a nearly impossible situation. "What?!? I HAVE to endorse gay marriage?!?"

I also think that with NS being an RP many "conservative" nations, new or old, have a problem with the idea of RPing out their nations, say, endorsing gay marriage. Once again, with a more loose and fluid interpretation and with quick countersteps this wouldn't be an RP issue, but I don't think most nations consider these options.

I don't mean to be mad at those that say "get out of the UN you conservative piece of trash", but to me it's just frustrating when they're dogmatic about it. And I think it makes the situation all that much more slippery sloped, which is the idea behind the game..The idea behind the book...the idea behind many outside-of-politics political analysese.

But yeah, I think I get your point. And I think I, at least partially, agree.

I would certainly welcome some more elasticity in the UN's 'enforcement' of resolutions, allowing those who disagree with, say, gay marriage to get away with cloaked breaches of their duties. Not because I think this is a good thing and that they deserve the leeway, but because it opens up a new field of diplomacy etc. I'm all for a dose of Machiavelli and realpolitik in a game like this. Unfortunately, the mechanics of the current UN preclude this as the game itself does the enforcing. I'm pretty certain that Mikitivity, who has received the brunt of criticism from those who are dissatisfied with the UN, would support such a development.

We do have a problem that a lot of angst is caused by both personal attacks and lazy catch-all terms that potentially group thousands of nations together who have very little common ground beyond a tendency to vote the same way on certain issues.

I understand. I like to think of it as less of a "liberals" are to blame or "conservatives" are to blame as much as I like to think of it as a nearly impossible situation. I mean, "conservatives" are in a Catch-22 if they don't follow the approach of Mikivity, or perhaps a little more of what I've seen, if the people telling them what to do don't follow Mik.


Since you are using my nation as an example, could you perhaps explain what you mean by that, because I think you are being unfair in your portrayal of my nation.


The part that bugs me, is that many nations assume that my government is some leader of a secret socialist plot to take over the world. And yet, two of our (my government, not the plot) resolutions have in fact been among the most respectiful of *domestic* rights out of the 70 resolutions that have passed to date:

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/Ressummary.pdf

I don't know if it was by accident or by design, but one of the anti-UN advocates actually used one of my resolutions as an example of what he or his nation would like to see ... or rather that he didn't object to the resolution.



But let me briefly explain my theory on how best to "fix" the situation.

- Bad proposals will continue to be submitted.
- We can't change that.
- Some of these proposals will collect 135 endorsements and become endorsements.
- We can't change that.
- Nations that go through the process once, have obviously figured out what it takes to collect 135+.
- I assume that they are more likely to repeat the process and be successful in getting a second proposal to resolution stage.
- Instead of discouraging people whom have proven they can work without the UN forum and collect 135+ endorsements, let's throw a compliament or two their way and win their ears.

Unfortunately, the mechanics of the current UN preclude this as the game itself does the enforcing.
Nah. The game mechanics aspect is a one-shot deal. After that, it's entirely roleplay.

Anybody remember the Joccacian Whore Wars, which began as violent opposition / interpretation of the Legalise Prostitution resolution? It started in the UN, then moved to II as a full-out political blockade, then war. While Joccacia got slapped around a lot, they had a genuinely interesting role-play that ran for ... well, far longer than I was interested in following it. Nothing from game mechanics touched Joccacia or any of their opposition.

Nah, you're wrong. That diplomatic door is still wide open.

Nah. The game mechanics aspect is a one-shot deal. After that, it's entirely roleplay.

Anybody remember the Joccacian Whore Wars, which began as violent opposition / interpretation of the Legalise Prostitution resolution? It started in the UN, then moved to II as a full-out political blockade, then war. While Joccacia got slapped around a lot, they had a genuinely interesting role-play that ran for ... well, far longer than I was interested in following it. Nothing from game mechanics touched Joccacia or any of their opposition.

Nah, you're wrong. That diplomatic door is still wide open.
Hmm. Perhaps I mean to say that the people who flagrantly breach UN rules generally don't bother to follow through with the roleplay, with honourable exceptions like Joccia, of course. Instead, they just pout and whine on every thread they can.

Oh, dear. Misanthropy alert. I should say that I had no idea Joccia's magnificent lampooning of bad resolutions led to an RP in II.

Hmm again. Did not Joccia rigidly apply the UN resolutions but exploit their inherent flaws and inconsistencies? Rather than saying, "yah boo, I'm ignoring this", the more common retort? I'm not convinced I'm proven wrong yet. [insert winking emoticon if you are so inclined]

Since you are using my nation as an example, could you perhaps explain what you mean by that, because I think you are being unfair in your portrayal of my nation.


Oh this sucks. I completely misread one of your posts.

Here:


I count my nation among the small list of nations that believes that nations that have no intention of ever participating by expressing their views and being willing to listen to other nation's views, would be better suited leaving the UN and just picking and choosing their own domestic policies.

Now that I read it thoroughly (I skimmed at first, because I really didn't care, it was going towards more of a pattern of behavior pile of thought), I realize what you are saying. I originally thought you were advocating leniency--not total leniency, but a reasonable, humanistic leniency. Apparently you don't. I'll strike your nation as an example.

Oh, and I'm fine with you being gun-shy with all the angry villagers there are in the forum, but I never said you were a socialist nation.

Congratulations on the greatness of your resolutions.

Hmm. Perhaps I mean to say that the people who flagrantly breach UN rules generally don't bother to follow through with the roleplay, with honourable exceptions like Joccia, of course. Instead, they just pout and whine on every thread they can.

Oh, dear. Misanthropy alert. I should say that I had no idea Joccia's magnificent lampooning of bad resolutions led to an RP in II.

Hmm again. Did not Joccia rigidly apply the UN resolutions but exploit their inherent flaws and inconsistencies? Rather than saying, "yah boo, I'm ignoring this", the more common retort? I'm not convinced I'm proven wrong yet. [insert winking emoticon if you are so inclined]

Joccia had at least a few non-UN nations that were active in II at the time following through on the events of his RP. Personally, I count his RP as very well done ... he was feeding my "Human Rights" regime info with which to attack him. :)

I have an idea that I'm going to bring to moderation about RPing the immediate UN resolutions. Just an idea or suggestion, but the basic would be that the mods could stick a link in the UN forum for RP in response to the most recent UN resolution. When another resolution is *resolved* by vote, the thread would be unstickied, and a new thread can begin.

I too am not pleased with all the UN resolutions. I think we should work within the UN to fix these problems. It is terrible hippocritical that one UN resolution says that people should be allowed to govern themselves, and then the next says, 'oh yeah, but not this... you have to do this whether you want to or not'

If we worked to create new propositions that replaced, or negated old ones, maybe that would help our points some. I say we need to promote use of the UN forum as a debate for Resolutions. If no one SAYS they have a problem with it, it is as if no one does. I'm sure if enough nations and regions worked together, we could get some of the problems ironed out. A good start would be to figure out where problems lie, and list them here. Meanwhile, begin to promote debate in the UN and tell you region UN members (and any others you can) to do the same.

emphasis added

Well, I wouldn't say they've "adopted" the 'walk away attitude' as much as they've had it "shoved down their throats upon penalty of 'stupidness'".

At least, that's MY take on the UN scene.

This elitism is part of the cause of the UN being what it is instead of what it could be.

I, the nation of Chowder Shower would like to propose a chamber of commerce for nationstates. The UN is FAR too liberal, and the a chamber of commererce or a league of conservative states would be a much enjoyed, highly welcome new feature. Any comments or ideas?

If we worked to create new propositions that replaced, or negated old ones, maybe that would help our points some. I say we need to promote use of the UN forum as a debate for Resolutions. If no one SAYS they have a problem with it, it is as if no one does. I'm sure if enough nations and regions worked together, we could get some of the problems ironed out. A good start would be to figure out where problems lie, and list them here. Meanwhile, begin to promote debate in the UN and tell you region UN members (and any others you can) to do the same.
ObDisclaimer: I am most definitely a member of the moderate-left faction.

Koshou, you are mostly right.

A resolution has to walk a very fine line between refining and carving out exceptions to existing resolutions on one hand, and outright repealing on the other. The former is allowed; the latter is not allowed and will get you a moderator warning or worse. Still, as long as you're careful about where that line lies, I encourage you and every nation to walk the walk. If you draft a resolution skillfully and support it with intelligent, reasoned argument, you may find you have a lot more approvals than you expected. I suspect there's a substantial "swing vote" of moderates like myself who can be persuaded to either side with a well-reasoned, carefully worded resolution.

As for debate? You are absolutely right. The center and left have many strong and vocal intellects active in the forums. Unfortunately, the right has only a handful and they tend to state a principle with very little supportive reasoning, and repeat it a lot. (There are exceptions, of course, but that tends to be the rule.) That makes for a rather lopsided debate. I'd love to see some conservative or moderate-right debaters come forward who can ask incisive questions and give thoughtful answers, above and beyond parroting an oversimplified position statement.

I agree with many of the comments that the current UN membership is heavily biased towards the political left. I admit that I find that off-putting. As a new player, I would wish for a... humbler... UN, one with an incentive for or dedication to a wider concensus. Simple majority increases polarization and decrease the diversity of viewpoints (some uh, individual, said earlier in this thread that democracy protects minorities... maybe they should as a statement of moral desire, but they in no way actually do). Requiring 60 or 70 percent for passing resolutions would be a good way to increase idealogical diversity in UN membership. I don't know if this is practical, or even possible (or likely to get me banned for suggesting--does this seriously happen?).

I kind of liked Vastiva's suggetion:Some sort of reward for being part of the UN - regardless of measures passed - such as a boost to economy (business +) due to greater trade availability might encourage more nations of the conservative bent to get involved and stay involved.This is a good start. You don't even have to mess with game mechanics to do so, really, simply create a resolution that is, hello, pro-business. Or what if, say, a resolution was created that imposed special trade status for member nations? A radical example would be along the lines of mandatory trade tarrif exemptions for member states. It doesn't have to be that radical, but there's no reason why something like this wouldn't work (well, unless there's no way for the underlying stats engine to reflect such a resolution).

Even better (but possibly requiring programming changes and thus impossible--I'm new so have no idea if this is even feasible) would be something that increases stat benefits in proportion to the participation of nations in the UN. In other words, if 50% of the NS nations are in the UN, the plus is better than if only 20% are. This gives incentive for those currently in the UN to be more welcoming as well as giving incentive to others to join.

At any rate, some ideas from a recent conservative-leaning member of the UN.

I wonder if it would be possible to create a UN for regions? IE like the European Union or something of that nature in the game. It would be better then jointing the useless nations.

It would be better then jointing the useless nations.Judas, Chowder. I'm conservative and you're starting to annoy me! I mean, name calling? You cheapen the label conservative... Maybe you have a personal issue you need to work out before whining about not fitting in at UN?

Well you can't please everyone, and I'm sure as hell not trying too. You know what they say, you can't fight city hall, or in this case the UN and its goons. So from now on I will try to build a Coalition of Willing Conservatives and hopefully turn the tide in the UN, if not may god help us all. So I can’t fight the man, so I might as well vote him out of office. That’s why I started a new region: Land of Conservative Nations….if you’re a conservative and interested in joining please do, but if not please don’t, your not welcome.

I think many of you are missing the point of the United Nations.

It is a voluntary organization, and joining it means you will have to

C O M P R O M I S E

While I understand that many of you want to talk about these epic battles between "liberals" and "conservatives", but in order to get people to listen to your POVs, often instead of painting everything is such black and white terms, a moderate position will get you much further.

This applies to liberal and conservative nations alike.

OOC: This comes from a self-avowed socialist, just to get that out in the air to start with.

IC: Enn is a firm believer in the United Nations, but we do admit that there are some things which could be done better. BUT we also accept that the chances of things happening are very small. As such, we have learnt to live with the UN in its current form, and have even championed it on occassion.

If you wish to create a "counter-UN", then there is no point talking about it here. That is a discussion that could only take place in Technical, as it refers to changing the mechanics of the game. If you do not wish to take this up with those who are actually able to change the way the game works, then I do not see why you are wasting space in the UN forum.
It is entirely possible to create an off-site forum to discuss your views as well. Invisionfree.com is quite good as a free webforum.

I believe the majority of people misunderstood my intentions. I want to see if there was any support in my idea and then bring it to the technical forum. I don't think it was too unreasonable to post my ideas in the I hate the UN form. Do you?

There are to many liberals in the UN we need to even out the odds. I call on Conservative nations everywhere to join the UN!

Well you can't please everyone, and I'm sure as hell not trying too. You know what they say, you can't fight city hall, or in this case the UN and its goons. So from now on I will try to build a Coalition of Willing Conservatives and hopefully turn the tide in the UN, if not may god help us all. So I can?t fight the man, so I might as well vote him out of office. That?s why I started a new region: Land of Conservative Nations?.if you?re a conservative and interested in joining please do, but if not please don?t, your not welcome.
Chowder, it's considered rude to cross post the same thing in two threads (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6889446&postcount=8) at essentially the same time. Pick one of the other. You're not helping your case here.

Well since I started the League of Conservative Nations forum I can display my opinion there, and since I wanted to reach into a broader audience I posted it here too. Do you have a problem with this? I believe they call it freedom of speech. (with in the game rules of course) But if you don't like my idea thats okay, but i wouldn't call it "rude" by no means to post my ideas in two forums; rude would be a word reserved to a person who posted the same message in all the UN forums.

Hm, perhaps we could split it into three sub-UN's, liberal, conservative, and moderate. In fact, I think the UN's been overstepping its bounds of promoting peace among nations lately...

I really must add to those who say that all the UN regulars go running to the mods - look at the thread on Hersford's Olympic Proposal in Moderation.

I think many of you are missing the point of the United Nations.

It is a voluntary organization, and joining it means you will have to

C O M P R O M I S E

While I understand that many of you want to talk about these epic battles between "liberals" and "conservatives", but in order to get people to listen to your POVs, often instead of painting everything is such black and white terms, a moderate position will get you much further.

This applies to liberal and conservative nations alike.


I assume this means "to listen with an open mind to both sides, rather then give in to knee jerk reactions".

A good thought, actually. The problem remains the polarity of views, the "dug in long standing members" vs "new ideolots" or whomever. Very, very little compromise can happen when an "us v them" stance is adopted.

Hm, perhaps we could split it into three sub-UN's, liberal, conservative, and moderate. In fact, I think the UN's been overstepping its bounds of promoting peace among nations lately...

"Overstepping it's bounds of promoting peace"??? What, you want the UN to promote war?

"Overstepping it's bounds of promoting peace"??? What, you want the UN to promote war?

Why not? it would be better than a bunch of people sitting around trying to appease everybody.

People in the UN propose naive resolutions that unfortunantly appeal for a person's "sentimental" side and this seriously disturbs those nations who wish to progress economically, this has got to stop.

I do think that the "if you don't like UN policy then resign" refrain from the majority faction is frequent enough to be considered a tactic to keep control. I don't blame those who are using it however- it's entirely valid as a tactic. I blame those who are foolish enough not to recognise it for what it is and resign.

I do think that the "if you don't like UN policy then resign" refrain from the majority faction is frequent enough to be considered a tactic to keep control. I don't blame those who are using it however- it's entirely valid as a tactic. I blame those who are foolish enough not to recognise it for what it is and resign.

OOC Uhm, you do know (a) this is a game and (b) the majority of players are young. These do not give strength to the idea of sticking around when dealing with illogical, intolerant, hypocritical bastards in order to get a word in edgewise.

Umm... Vastiva, who are you actually referring to? Your post could qualify as flaming, regardless of the intended target.

OOC:
Okay guys, sorry for not responding to your, uh, responses. Anyway, I have read them all and I think that the time for action instead of words is now. I dare all who posted in this thread (both those who think the UN is anti-business and those of the forum elite claiming to have an open mind) to actually turn the tide.

I have made some brainstorm ideas for pro-business UN resolutions. More can be added, of course, and they are still to be developmed I hope that this can be a nice initiative. See the thread here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=352950)

OOC Uhm, you do know (a) this is a game and (b) the majority of players are young. These do not give strength to the idea of sticking around when dealing with illogical, intolerant, hypocritical bastards in order to get a word in edgewise.
OOC

a) Yes. That post was entirely IC.

b) While I'm not young anymore :( I don't think anything is gained by assuming that young players want us to patronise them by taking that into account by how we play.

Herein lies the problem. This is a social event with fun elements. Therefore, having to argue with people to get something done becomes rather quickly "not fun" if you have little to no support, and are being lambasted by what you may or may not perceive as "experienced individuals".

Playing a liberal is easy, and it becomes difficult to envision the opposite, particularly as many who play haven't yet come in contact with that element of life - that Conservatism has it's place, and not all problems should be or even need to be solved. Or that funding and logistics are real problems to any solution, no matter how well intended.

The case of International Hunger comes to mind (quiet, grampa is talking). People who live in a desert will experience famine. Why? It's a desert - nothing grows there. Shipping them food creates a dependance on the source, it does not solve the long term problem. And it is here that liberalism and conservatism diverge. Liberalism would help everyone. Conservatism is more of the view "you dug your own hole, you get to live in it". Judicially, this could be related to the difference between the qualities of mercy and severity. That an absolute devotion to either pole is unhealthy has not oft occured to the young - it sometimes takes a lifetime to discover moderation.

However, again, it's a game. Some assume it's a zero-sum game, and therefore play "to win". This means the advancement of their ideology over any other, in the face of anything. And when you get a group of these people "all of like mind"... the problem becomes monolithic.

I suppose it all comes back to real "open-mindedness" and the constant realization that this is a game, not a competition. However, the first is relatively rare, and the latter many lose sight of all to often.

Namaste, and thank you for your time.

Herein lies the problem. This is a social event with fun elements. Therefore, having to argue with people to get something done becomes rather quickly "not fun" if you have little to no support, and are being lambasted by what you may or may not perceive as "experienced individuals".

Playing a liberal is easy, and it becomes difficult to envision the opposite, particularly as many who play haven't yet come in contact with that element of life - that Conservatism has it's place, and not all problems should be or even need to be solved. Or that funding and logistics are real problems to any solution, no matter how well intended.

The case of International Hunger comes to mind (quiet, grampa is talking). People who live in a desert will experience famine. Why? It's a desert - nothing grows there. Shipping them food creates a dependance on the source, it does not solve the long term problem. And it is here that liberalism and conservatism diverge. Liberalism would help everyone. Conservatism is more of the view "you dug your own hole, you get to live in it". Judicially, this could be related to the difference between the qualities of mercy and severity. That an absolute devotion to either pole is unhealthy has not oft occured to the young - it sometimes takes a lifetime to discover moderation.

However, again, it's a game. Some assume it's a zero-sum game, and therefore play "to win". This means the advancement of their ideology over any other, in the face of anything. And when you get a group of these people "all of like mind"... the problem becomes monolithic.

I suppose it all comes back to real "open-mindedness" and the constant realization that this is a game, not a competition. However, the first is relatively rare, and the latter many lose sight of all to often.

Namaste, and thank you for your time.

Hear hear..! Well put wise one...!

My goal is to roleplay a character. I do not see this as a winable "game". Thus I do not "play" to "win".

The point is also, to me, NOT to convert others to my view, but to "point at" some principle that we can "chew on" in discussion.

That discussion I call "enjoyable", even if we disagree vehemently and hotly, if we can chew on the topic and not each other, and that is the problem with a UN that is not a meeting hall of discussion, but a large stick to enforce a "tyranny of the minority/majority" and end the discussion with "we have decided and the LAW is thus."

Then again,.. I'm not a member of the UN (because of this), and have yet to see any non-RP mechanics in this "game", so the machinations of the UN are utterly inconsequential to my enjoyment of the discussions that I get into.

Many thanks for your compliments. :)

I shall have to ship more clam sauce immediately.

And you are absolutely correct. It has moved from a meeting place to tyranny of the "liberal majority". Oh well, doesn't mean I'm leaving. Just means I put that in my calculations. Dealing with school board nitwits is just another facet I thought I'd put behind me...

I think for the most part Vastiva is right. *sigh* O well we have superpowers2 to look forward too. That game basically deals and goes further than this game on all levels of economics and idealism. Check it out it looks pretty sharp.

Granted, the NS UN may be annoying, if you're in it.

However, unlike the real world, the NS UN has no way to enforce it's authority on nations OUTSIDE of the UN. :p

Axis Nova

the NS UN has no way to enforce it's authority on nations OUTSIDE of the UN.
And if that's not a great double-edged sword, I don't know what is. We've never been interested in any of the multitude of arms-control or trade-limitation proposals for that very reason - it just makes UN nations more vulnerable.

I stay in the UN for the same reason I belong to the political party I do (which rarely represents me) - I get a chance to argue and vote AGAINST the stupid stuff. And it's not all liberal, believe me. No single party or affiliation has a monopoly on stupidity.

And if that's not a great double-edged sword, I don't know what is. We've never been interested in any of the multitude of arms-control or trade-limitation proposals for that very reason - it just makes UN nations more vulnerable.

I stay in the UN for the same reason I belong to the political party I do (which rarely represents me) - I get a chance to argue and vote AGAINST the stupid stuff. And it's not all liberal, believe me. No single party or affiliation has a monopoly on stupidity.

OOC:
As an active member of a political party myself I can second that. Makes me curious about yours though. :P

You all knows it!
Who ever demanded that everyone have a toilet? The only way to pass all your resolutions and pay for them would be to spend a sizeable chunk of the gross world product on sewer systems and the rest on your zany ideas!
Besides you're authoritarian, it's like this U.N. wants to micromanage each and every member country.

You people are crazy!
Crazy I say!

(Please excuse the lack of recent idiotic U.N. ideas for me to post as I just today joined Nationstates.net again. I'll make up for it sometime.)

(Looking around for a mod)

Can we merge this into the "I Hate the UN" thread, please?

That would be totally kewl with me. Did not know you had one. Flares up every now and again, eh?


Nukes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One day (if it had been possible in-game to use them) my nation will have nukes, weapons, business and fun stuff (that belong to good games). If this happens (as it would every now and again in the real world) this kind of wussy U.N. would have to wage a war to take it away from most of their member states.

Think of the widespread destruction. The vacant nations after their territories have been reduced to a slimy mudge in which only coackroaches and flies live and who knows what would really survive. The strategical bombers flying in and out of countries day and night as major regions fall to the curse of apocalyptic warring.


And that would be SO cool!

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Merged.
Keep the UN-hating to the one thread please...


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Merged.
Keep the UN-hating to the one thread please...


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Maybe this thread should be stickied in order to insure that it's seen.

Death To The Un> It Is Complety Run By The Left To Stop The Right From Expressing Their God_given Right To Free Speech! I Was Ejected For Having A Swastika For A Flag, Because It "offended" Some1. Yeh Well U No Wot Offends Me?

The Fact That The Un< The Worlds Governing Body< Is Completly Biased To The Left To The Point Where No Resolutions Suggested By The Right Are Noticed>

Hiel Hitler!

The Fact That The Un< The Worlds Governing Body< Is Completly Biased To The Left To The Point Where No Resolutions Suggested By The Right Are Noticed>
Nice rant. Did you have to get somebody to type it for you?

I don't recall seeing any proposals from Powdia in the proposal queue. I don't recall any suggestions from Powdia for right-flavored agenda items on the topic list. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing you before at all.

Nobody took away anything from you. You're still here, aren't you? Where are all these proposals that you want the UN to vote for? Post them. Publish them. Campaign for them as hard as the so-called leftists do, and maybe you'll get one in Quorum. When it gets voted down, THEN you might have a case.

Maybe this thread should be stickied in order to insure that it's seen.
And have everyone complain about the bias shown towards the UN haters by giving them a sticky? ;)

And have everyone complain about the bias shown towards the UN haters by giving them a sticky? ;)

It would be restoring a balance ;) Affirmative action I say.

aw come...on.....

13 pages of UN hate to two pages of UN love....what a travesty, give the UN your heart felt thanks, post your undying admiration in the other more emotionally satisfying thread......

Just started. After only one issue I'm already hating the UN. This next one will probally force me to drop out of the UN before it takes effect.

aw come...on.....

13 pages of UN hate to two pages of UN love....what a travesty, give the UN your heart felt thanks, post your undying admiration in the other more emotionally satisfying thread......

I find hate much more emotionally satisfying. What should I thank the UN for? What has it ever done for me?

I find hate much more emotionally satisfying. What should I thank the UN for? What has it ever done for me?
Don't you feel the weight of anger lifting from your chest as you lay into some liberal n00b? I find it as cleansing as a visit to the spa. I can assure you that my co-workers appreciate it, as that weight doesn't descend on their heads nearly as often.

Aw heck, now I'm going to have to cross-post in the Love topic ...

I was once a member of this United Nations. And I will say that there are quite a few proposals that are nice. But for the most part the majority of the proposals that are enacted are either laws that most would assume common sense, or they are so idiotic that they make me angry.

Im pissed that being a member of the United Nations forces me to enact some of these terrible laws that a lot of them totaly contradict what my nation stands for.

Lets look at some of the resolutions passed by the UN in the past.
If you want to see the full text of these proposals check them out on the index site, but for now I'm going to sum them up
No Embargoes on Medicine
Pretty much as it says, no embargoes on medicine. A great proposal and one I whole heartedly support.


Free education
Free education for anyone under 18.

Another good proposal, but remember when I said something about common sense? I figuried free education was a given for almost any country in the 20th century.


Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Every nation should start producing hydrogen cars

A terrible proposal, It states that every nation "should" start researching and producing hydrogen cars, it does nothing. It is mearly a suggestion.


Fight the Axis of Evil
Increase military budgets to fight the "axis of evil"

What the hell is this? It does not state who these "evil" countries are. In the proposal it states that "This means, of course, building lots of new weapons." This disgusts me, it sounds more like THEY are the axis of evil. Nothing was ever solved by more weapons and more army. This is another terrible proposal, and I am glad I left the UN before this was enacted.



Education For All
Free education for everyone under 16

Gee....I could swear this was already enacted for everyone under the age of 18 :rolleyes:


MANDATORY RECYCLING
"Be it hereby resolved that all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries be recycled by all UN member states."

This proposal is about half crap, All these things should be recycled. But lets break it down. Paper: Paper is an organic material that breaks down in months when exposed to the elements, but should still be recycled to some extent to cut down on the consumption of trees. Glass: Glass is made from Soda Ash and Sillica (Sand) It is an EXTREEMLY common resource and we are no where near comming close to useing it up, and glass causes no harm to the enviroment when put back into it, like say...in a landfill. It can be recycled, but doesnt need to be. Aluminium: Aluminium can be recycled, but it is a very expensive process and consumes more resources and causes more pollution than just making more aluminium. I can be recycled, but its better not to. Batteries: They contain chemicals that are potentialy dangerous to the enviroment and should be recycled, a good idea.



I invite anyone to comment on anything I have said in this post and I will check back perodicaly to respond.

Thank you.

Wouldn't it be also effective to form a power block against some of these laws to be enacted? If so i am intrested and would support it. A common Sense foundation if you will.

Fight the Axis of Evil
Increase military budgets to fight the "axis of evil"

What the hell is this? It does not state who these "evil" countries are. In the proposal it states that "This means, of course, building lots of new weapons." This disgusts me, it sounds more like THEY are the axis of evil. Nothing was ever solved by more weapons and more army. This is another terrible proposal, and I am glad I left the UN before this was enacted.


You left the UN before this resolution was enacted? I'm a little confused as to how this is possible as this resolution was enacted the day before the UN started as a test to ensure that everything was working correctly.


Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002), the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world.

Fight the Axis of Evil
Implemented: Tue Nov 12 2002

And have everyone complain about the bias shown towards the UN haters by giving them a sticky? ;)

Then sticky the "I love the UN" thread as well.

You left the UN before this resolution was enacted? I'm a little confused as to how this is possible as this resolution was enacted the day before the UN started as a test to ensure that everything was working correctly.



Ahhh whoops....I didnt notice the dates, and assumed the ones on top were the most recent.

Thanks for the note :D

Nothing was ever solved by more weapons and more army.

The whole 'Hitler' issue comes to mind here. I have great fun pointing out to people that the Danes halved their army at the start of WWII to 'avoid provoking Hitler'. Clever move. And Pearl harbour is pretty solid lesson in why you shouldn't rely on (or even use) economic embargos.

Other than that, nice summary!

Ahhh whoops....I didnt notice the dates, and assumed the ones on top were the most recent.

Thanks for the note :D

You also obvioulsy didn't notice the number if votes on that proposal (3), if that was a recent proposal there's no way it would have had so few votes cast on it, especially considering the number of times I've seen people try to repeal it.

For the benefit of any other Diepoldsau-schmitter (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357622)-type, UN-hating, emoticon-misusing clones, consider this topic bumped.

So far, 5 threads have been merged into this one.
I can't speak for the other moderators, but I will now be deleting all future 'The UN sucks' threads.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Hurrah for Myrth!

Go get them, Myrth ! :D

* Myrth, I think your eye is a little in-flammed, ;)

Amazing, and official anti-UN thread. Awesome. Well anyway I'm here to say that if you are interested come join GCON. A region origianally created to end the UN tyranny. Let's join together and beat down the UN door.

Amazing, and official anti-UN thread. Awesome. Well anyway I'm here to say that if you are interested come join GCON. A region origianally created to end the UN tyranny. Let's join together and beat down the UN door.
I'm glad you GCON fans finally found the right place to post. Now go away, we don't care about your dumb anti-UN agenda or your regional spam.

I'm glad you GCON fans finally found the right place to post. Now go away, we don't care about your dumb anti-UN agenda or your regional spam.
Hey hey... this is the anti-Un thread. Its here for this reason.

Look we created GCON way back in the day to bring down the UN. You guys sitting around wineing about the UN is getting nothing accomplished we joined together in GCON for the specific reason to bring down the UN. I say words are for cowards and wars are for men join us. Look we are not terrorists we are an actual group of nations united against the UN. We will never be able to actually challenge the UN until we have more nations under one flag than they do. I dont care what your nations stand for buy this is the only way their tyranny will ever fall.

Oh and by the way in my book this is not spam its a wake up call to NationStates to unite against the UN.

... right. You do realise that words is pretty much as far as you can go on a text-based forum. Right?

Ahem. *straightens tie*

Teh U.N. suxx0rz!!!! ROFLLFLOFOOLFOR!1111111!!!! :sniper: :headbang: :mp5: :rolleyes: :mad:





Ah. That was nice. I do feel better for venting.

Off to work again...

The UN is just a waster of your gameplaying time. Forget about it and enjoy the game for what it is.

Also, I believe that the UN should be stopped, but my options are go to war with all UN nations, which I would if I had more support, or wait til it collapses, but either way the UN is bound to die out eventually anyways.

You guys sitting around wineing about the UNYOU FOUL U.N. BASTARDS !

WE have WINE and NO-ONE told ME ? ? ?

I am hurt. I am deeply, deeply, hurt. ;)Amazing, and official anti-UN thread. Awesome. Well anyway I'm here to say that if you are interested come join GCON. A region origianally created to end the UN tyranny. Let's join together and beat down the UN door.And again, please keep the region pimping in game-play, okay ?

* Hmmm, no facial-tick emoticon, for shame ... :)

You know you'd think you'd have something better to do than make fun of people for trying to take down the un, cuz we want to rp, but I guess that's all your feeble UN supporting minds can handle. I'm not a person to make fun of or judge someone I don't even know, but if that's they way you're all going to be then I suppose I have no other choice.

Look we are not terrorists we are an actual group of nations united against the UN. We will never be able to actually challenge the UN until we have more nations under one flag than they do. I dont care what your nations stand for buy this is the only way their tyranny will ever fall.


Your not terrorists? then what are you? your intent is to destroy the UN. My interpretation of a terrorist is one who wishes to disrupt, and destroy.

I think someone who wants to see the end of the UN would fit that bill.

So would you have considered the American Revolutionists Terriorists, cuz they fought for good. I suppose to some they were terrorists, however they disrupted life. I guess anyone can be considered a terrorist to someone else. Anyway I just wanted to point out that terrorists may not always be bad people.

I believe that terrorists are people who prey on the innocent for no reason except they serve under someone they hate. That is why in GCON I created the Rules of War act under are specific guidlines to conduct wars with the uttermost respect for human life and national individuality.

Dumb anti-UN people make the Lady Galadriël cry. :(

actually its not all relative. There are many who see abortion as wrong (myself included). How can we have attempt to outlaw the death penalty, but then say that abortion is right?
cuz aborting a fetus isnt killing a life because it isnt ALIVE. there's no brainwave activity, there is no life in it, and when brainwave activity does show up, when it is actually alive, thats around the first trimester and thats when they STOP giving abortions.

The magnificent nation of Bahgum deeply loves the UN, it's oddness and strange attraction to repetitive topics is what helps us get through the day, also the glorious leader has discovered that his Mother in law doesn't like the UN, so it must be mighty fine indeed!

You know you'd think you'd have something better to do than make fun of people for trying to take down the un,I didn't notice people making fun of you specifically. But then again, I thought people would have something better to do then make fun of people who want to join the U.N. or make fun of the U.N. itself.cuz we want to rp,And once GCON members stop posting region pimping material here there and every-where, every few weeks, I'm sure we'll all take that more seriously then you presume we don't now.but I guess that's all your feeble UN supporting minds can handle.Well that will garner you a great deal of support here I'm sure. A case of " When in doubt, the other guy is an idiot ", I guess.I'm not a person to make fun of or judge someone I don't even know,And yet ...but if that's they way you're all going to be then I suppose I have no other choice.I know, terrible when people think for them-selves and don't bow to your every whim. It can be very dissapointing I'm sure.

So would you have considered the American Revolutionists Terriorists, cuz they fought for good. I suppose to some they were terrorists, however they disrupted life. I guess anyone can be considered a terrorist to someone else. Anyway I just wanted to point out that terrorists may not always be bad people.

The American Revolutionares were terrorists to the British.

Good is only in the eyes of those who interpret it, it is not a universally accepted interpretation.

To some, Capitalism is everything that is wrong with the world, and to capitalists, its the exact opposite.

Both sides state they are essentially "Good"

A terrorist is a person/group that threatens to overthrow or disrupt normal life of another group's citizens. Take the Chechnian Rebels in Russia, to some they are "Freedom fighter" to Russia, they are Terrorists.

That was exactly my point. And I don't see why you have to be such a jerk and "think" you know what I'm talking about in my posts. I should just ignore you cuz you're like every other person who is too stupid to understand that people have conflicting views, but for some reason I can't ignore you. I guess it really doesn't matter, but at least we agree on something, terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

The Bankers Union and, indeed the region of Gatesville considers the UN to be a big, corrupt liberal beast. Now, in terms of actually fighting it: Join the UN and vote on conservative ideals, only then can we hope to start to undo the evil things passed. Thank You.

That was exactly my point. And I don't see why you have to be such a jerk and "think" you know what I'm talking about in my posts. I should just ignore you cuz you're like every other person who is too stupid to understand that people have conflicting views, but for some reason I can't ignore you. I guess it really doesn't matter, but at least we agree on something, terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

exactly, but what this thread is doing, would be like the American Revolutionaries going to Britain, and complaining about what they disagree with.

I am sure britain wouldn't have even given the Americans the light of day if they did that, why should we?

why should we interpret what you are doing is good, and agree with that, when we dont agree that attacking the UN is a good idea?

Honestly, I dont think you have a good opinion, that doesnt mean I bend over backwards to accept that your opinion is indeed valid.

But I am not angry at you, and I am certainly not trying to come off as a jerk, but I am trying to inject Logic into the conversation.

Being Logical doesnt always come off as being polite.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from, but the Revolutionists had to have something to gain support. Fighting britian was not a popular subject, neither is fighting the UN. So they put out all kinds of pamphlets and essays and the like to convince people to take up arms. Is it a crime for GCON do to the same?

So they put out all kinds of pamphlets and essays and the like to convince people to take up arms. Is it a crime for GCON do to the same?Considering the nature of this game and its forums, no it is not, if it is done in the right places ...

Returning this topic to service, Because Unpleasant Malcontents Pontificate way too much.

The rightness or wrongness of Gay marriage is not the issue here. The point is that a group of crazy Liberal nuts have taken control of the UN and are trying to ram their narrow agendas on all of us. The UN should restrict itself to general issues such as security, general human rights, weapons proliferation and environmental protection and not interfere in areas that cause deep and bitter ideological divisions

Romarea will vote against the resolution.

The rightness or wrongness of Gay marriage is not the issue here. The point is that a group of crazy Liberal nuts have taken control of the UN and are trying to ram their narrow agendas on all of us. The UN should restrict itself to general issues such as security, general human rights, weapons proliferation and environmental protection and not interfere in areas that cause deep and bitter ideological divisions

Romarea will vote against the resolution.

But there are those (and I might be one of them) who would first ask what are general human rights? And then say that topics such as security are as equally controversial as human rights because they can be used to discriminate against people you don't like.

The UN should be for everybody. Even those you (or I) disagree with. And if this "group of liberal nuts" has taken over, then it must be a pretty big group, and so should at least be listened to :}

(Shakes head with a grin)

Reason number 113,045,938,272 not to join the NS-UN.
:)

Let it be known that Hellinon will not be bullied by the United Nations. The last two resolutions passed by the UN are a gross violation of national sovereignty. Those resolutions are of no effect in the Holy Empire and will not be implemented.

It's nice that you think that's the case. Take your bombast and hot air elsewhere, my dears.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Reread the FAQ.

You have no choice.

As soon as you join, your nation is automatically affected by all past resolutions. You have no choice and no say in the matter.

The only way not to be affected by past or current resolutions is to not be a member of the UN.

Welcome to NSUN. Check your protests at the door.

Would I be correct in thinking, this now does warrant a lock or a merge into the " you know what " thread ? :rolleyes:

Would I be correct in thinking, this now does warrant a lock or a merge into the " you know what " thread ? :rolleyes:
Pretty much.

:D

I'm good at what I do !

( Just don't ask me what, because I have - no - idea ... )

The UN can pass all the resolutions it wants in violation of Hellinon's sovereignty. Our government will not implement them. Despite the protests of the UN's Deputy Speaker, no laws have been changed in the Holy Empire to comply with the last 2 UN resolutions. In fact, Hellinon will be withholding its UN dues until such time as the UN repeals its violations of national sovereignty.

Meh, I am a member of the UN. I simply don't uphold the resolutions, nobody will force me to :rolleyes:

I for one will be resigning from the UN in protest once my resolution fails. I'm ready to start an anti-UN league, complete with it's own forum and it's own set of non-interfearing rules.

I for one will be resigning from the UN in protest once my resolution fails. I'm ready to start an anti-UN league, complete with it's own forum and it's own set of non-interfearing rules.
I resigned a couple weeks ago myself - I had joined the UN, orignally thinking that my country would have a say in it.

Unfortunately I was terribly wrong - and not to mention went against my (now) libertarian principles; all the "social justice" reforms made my country far too socialist for my liking.

(OOC: Which is why a region of Superpower07 "seceeded" from its mother country to create the much more libertarian Super-power (technically I just created the nation))

LMAO

This thread is wickedly funny.

this, right here, is why only my garbage nation is a member of the un.

And this thread shows why I like laughing at certain posters.

If you're going to violate UN regulations, at least be creative about it.

The Doors Corporation despises the U.N. as well, we consider it a blight on humanity. Leaders who wish to hinder productivity, efficiency, military power, health, and business have taken over the U.N. and are twisting what is meant to be merely a tool for uniting and pacifying nations for their own usage to spread disease, famine, poverty, fear, and addicting drugs.
The Doors Corporation will be pleased to watch as the member nations of the U.N. slowly die off in the future as a result of their weakening laws taking effect. (or is affect? I dunno, heheh just found this thread)

The Doors Corporation despises the U.N. as well, we consider it a blight on humanity. Leaders who wish to hinder productivity, efficiency, military power, health, and business have taken over the U.N. and are twisting what is meant to be merely a tool for uniting and pacifying nations for their own usage to spread disease, famine, poverty, fear, and addicting drugs.
The Doors Corporation will be pleased to watch as the member nations of the U.N. slowly die off in the future as a result of their weakening laws taking effect. (or is affect? I dunno, heheh just found this thread)

We wish to hinder military power? Have you seen the proposal currently on the floor?

We wish to hinder military power? Have you seen the proposal currently on the floor?
Care to elaborate un'er?

Care to elaborate un'er?

Um...the Anti-Terrorism Act...

We pretty much have written off the UN. However we stick around for various reasons...

10) We enjoy p*ssing off Fluffies!

9) We have too much Barbaric Militant Machismo to keep penned up.

8) Occaisionally a worthy resolution appears, like the current one up for vote, the Anti Terrorism Bill *SHAMELESS PLUG*

7) CATGIRLS!!!

6) Its a great place to drink Wild Turkey(TM)

6) Getting to serenade nations that get p*ssed off and leave with the Roy Rogers song'Happy Trails'.

4) Once in a while, My Deputy Ambassador, Texas Jack Funk, gets to Piledrive an obnoxious delegate through a table.

3) The UN gnomes won't reinburse our security deposit.

2) Its warmer here than in Antarctica.

...And the number one reason we stay in the UN...
1) Most importantly, The Thessadrian Ambassador shows up to the debate hall.(as the song says "we hate to see her go, but love to watch her leave:p )

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

Why don't the CPESL servicewomen make that list?

Why don't the CPESL servicewomen make that list?

Haven't had the pleasure of dealing with them yet. Whats the going rate?

Haven't had the pleasure of dealing with them yet. Whats the going rate?

You'll have to speak with CPESL about that. Or you could always ask Mr. Riley. From what I understand, he employs their services on a regular basis.

Oh, for God's sake: It was a fact-finding mission!!! :mad:

That's not what she said...

Aw crap, now I have to go find the "I love the UN" thread.

EDIT: OK, I can't find it even using the search function.

DLE post: 22/01/05
TDC post: 08/02/06

Wow, the dead walk the earth...