NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve noticed nations asking why proposal and resolution authors are avoiding the UN forum. I think it is because in practice many UN members, newbies and long-time forum members alike, are outright hostile towards proposals and resolutions.

Things I’d respectfully ask my fellow diplomats to consider: a proposal is brought to the forum with the hopes of constructive comments. I see few. More often I’ve seen threats, “I WILL FIGHT THIS!” and personal attacks. While there may be mindreaders in NationStates, I seriously doubt that many proposal authors really are going to listen to somebody who just insulted them. (I say this with experience, as I’ve insulted many people to see them completely shut me out.)

A resolution that reaches the floor obviously did so with a significant amount of campaigning and UN Delegate support. Though resolutions can fail, I often think many of the negative comments (especially those from older nations) really send a pretty clear message to resolution authors: spend your time talking with nations that are actually going to listen to you.

Is the NS UN is nothing more than a debate society?

I think there are plenty of reasons to debate against a resolution. But I also think that there are a few basic “cards” that nations play … sometimes they drop just the card, and sometimes they actually expand upon the idea:

1) The "Sovereignty" Card:
Your resolution violates sovereignty! WE CAN NOT STAND FOR THIS.

2) The "UN isn't everybody" Card:
Your resolution will give a [military / economic] advantage to non-UN members. WE CAN NOT STAND FOR THIS.

3) The "Tech-Level" Card:
Your resolution ignores the nation of [insert obscure name of a civilization that may or may not even be in the UN, but is possibly active in roleplaying on another forum], HOW ARROGANT OF YOU!

4) The "Game Stat" Card:
Your resolution will destroy our [Civil Freedoms / Economy / Political Freedoms / secondary game stat]! The UN should never adopt any [Moral Decency / Political Stability / Environmental / Social Justice / Human Rights / International Peace and Security / Global Disarmament / the Further of Democracy] resolutions! They are all universally bad. WE WILL FIGHT YOU!



Now even good arguments include those "cards". But the good arguments still offer some constructive advice. In fact, each card is a good reason to not join the UN or to leave the UN. The UN is voluntary, and if you are often finding yourself wanting to play these cards maybe it is time for a change. There are certainly costs to participating in the UN, but I think there are benefits as well. One of those benefits is the chance to not draft a resolution, but to suggest constructive comments … I’ve done this and actually been polite about it and seen that some of my amendments have made it into other people’s resolutions!

But I think for those of you that are frequently finding that these four arguments summarize your opinion of the UN, that one way to change this might be to participate more. Be diplomatic … offer a suggestion instead of just dropping a card.

For those of you that have authored your own resolutions, I’ve watched most of the resolution debates since late Jan. 2004 and I’ve noticed that many of the arguments used against your resolutions are being used now against both resolutions and worse proposals that are looking for constructive advice, not just blanket, “We will not stand for this” statements. I’ve seen few resolution authors who have spent time in this forum and not come under attack. I’ve actually seen a few resolution authors need moderator intervention in order to calm things down too.

I’d like to say that every time any one of us plays one of the above "4 Debate Cards of Doom" on a resolution, that we take the UN forum a step further away from being a place to help build better resolutions, and a step closer to turning the UN forum into a pointless debate forum. The forum reads more like a newspaper editorial where both sides are screaming at each other, and the few moderators decide that maybe the newspaper isn’t such a good thing to read after all.

I'm sorry, you're violating my national sovereignty by...oh, nevermind. Ahem.

All kidding aside, here's my general position on resolutions, proposals, whatever.

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Now basically this means I'm never going to support U.N. interference in domestic affairs. I will, however, give consideration to the arguments for the various positions on domestic issues, as I believe such debates can be instructive.

What I do support U.N. involvement in is international trade. I couldn't care less if they are trying to impose fair trade or free trade, I won't bring up national sovereignty. I reserve the right to oppose such proposals on other grounds, though. :)

Aside to Mik: When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought, "Debate society? What we do actually constitutes debate?" But then I read your post and it seems you addressed that issue.

I admit sometimes I have launched in to a pretty ranty tirade about some of the proposals, and sometimes I felt bad about it after I did.

But every so often there are proposals that just make me want to cry for the state of humanity - proposals that are either so racist, homophobic or full of hate in general - that I can't just say "Oh yes - that's a good idea" without betraying everything my people believe I stand for.

And sometimes I do use one or two of the Cards of Doom (tm) - mostly the sovereignty or UN isn't everybody cards. But on the whole I have no problem with either of these - the good samaritan proposal, for example, does trample over sovereignty to some extend, but it is in a suitably good cause so I don't mind. And generally I have no problem with the UN messing with my national sovereignty. I mostly use the sovereignty card to defend the rights of other nations (eg the voting age of 16, the legal marriage age thing) even if I don't mind what is going on in the proposal.

The other times I tend to oppose them in order to get some tiny problem ironed out, rather than because I actually oppose them. (The Pornography/Age of Consent thing was an example of that, as was the nuclear terrorism act)

But generally I think there are some pretty good discussions, and some interesting debates. And on more than one occasion I have had my mind changed by some of the debates. And even if I haven't I get more of an understanding in to the minds of people I would not normally get a chance to converse with.

I have no idea if this relates to anything you put in your original post, because I kind of went off on a tangent. Sorry.

(Now before you go taking this as a personal attack, Mik, remember, you DID ask)

Frisbeeteria has a fundamental disagreement with what we see as the core argument in this topic, that the principal purpose of the UN is "being a place to help build better resolutions". Our principal purpose for being in the UN is to prevent bad law from being passed. One of the best things to happen to the UN was allowing repeals (although implementation has been pretty awful so far). Anything that gives us the opportunity to have less law is a Good Thing in the eyes of Frisbeeteria.

Thanks to the rules of this game, there are unlimited possibilities to what the UN can do. We happen to think that there are extremely few things that the UN must do. Obviously, we will disagree with others on what is international in scope or what transcends national boundaries, but we're willing to talk and we're willing to listen. Despite that, there are any number of proposals presented that are so far beyond out threshold of what we consider reasonable UN material that yes, we’ll stomp it.

The Trumps of Doom you listed are realistic and reasonable considerations when it comes to making good UN legislation. Poor use of the Strength and Category of a resolution is reason to kill it, in our opinion. Insufficient consideration of sovereignty issues should kill the debate. We're not going to sugarcoat it when we think a proposal is poorly thought out, or when the basic premise is fatally flawed.

I'll drop out a fifth Trump: After all, we all agree that [insert lame idea] is what the UN is here for, right? No, we don't all agree on that. Nothing will kill my interest in a debate faster than someone's assumption that I axiomatically agree with their principles and goals. You may be a sweetness and light democracy, I'm a down-and-dirty corporate oligarchy, he's a power-mad dictator, and she's a star-crossed theocrat. We're not going to agree on basic assumptions most of the time. That's a fact.

The UN is hostile? Check out General sometime. Check out International Incidents. Hell, look in the moderation and tech forums. The UN is sweetness and light compared to ALL of the other major forums. Do we use debate-killer tactics sometimes? Damn straight. Are they always deserved? Of course not. Are they sometimes deserved? You better believe it buddy, at least from our perspective.

This isn't a model UN, churning out exactly the same sorts of non-binding drivel the RL UN does. Resolutions here have "real" effects on game nations, and understanding the relationship of the UN to the way the game is played is more important than adhering to some debate standard from the RL UN.

You want realism? How about a UN that is so fractured by bickering that they can't arrive at consensus on much of anything? That's realistic. No real-world legislative body can debate issues like abortion or nuclear weapons for 4 days of approvals, and arrive at a fair vote in another four. No, they bat it around forever, and never get it on the calendar. That's a GOOD thing in our view. Let the locals decide.

Things I’d respectfully ask my fellow diplomats to consider: a proposal is brought to the forum with the hopes of constructive comments. I see few. More often I’ve seen threats, “I WILL FIGHT THIS!” and personal attacks. While there may be mindreaders in NationStates, I seriously doubt that many proposal authors really are going to listen to somebody who just insulted them.

Your statement here, IMHO, answers your own question as to the current state of the NS UN.

The reason constructive criticism is taken with a grain of salt in these forums is because proposal authors, for the most part, take criticism as an attack on their credibility, their motives, and their integrity.

Instead of being able to have a civil debate, posters engage in trite debates, off-topic cattiness, and overall distate for one another's ideology. Why's that, you ask? Because most can't discern between role-play and the real world in these forums, and let's face it, we're all role-playing here regardless of what time, effort, and creativity anyone of us puts into creating a proposal.

Nothing ever truly gets down around here, because at the end of the day, we're all a bunch of immature, arrogant diplomats, not UN peacemakers... and the latter is what the RL UN seeks to be, but too, has failed at in its mission.

(I say this with experience, as I’ve insulted many people to see them completely shut me out.)

You, yourself, are capable of doing this as am I and any other UN forum poster; truth be told, we're are own worst enemy here as to why the UN is not taken seriously, why people vote apathetically, and how come very few really puts thought into their UN proposals.

Your statement here, IMHO, answers your own question as to the current state of the NS UN.

The reason constructive criticism is taken with a grain of salt in these forums is because proposal authors, for the most part, take criticism as an attack on their credibility, their motives, and their integrity.


That is IMHO because the criticism is viewed as not being constructive and viewed as an attack.

While you might argue that proposal authors should expect rude and hostile replies, I'm of the opinion that if you want this forum to be something other than being a "debate society" that perhaps regulars here should put away their tough and mean exterior and actually try to work with nations and not against them.

The saying, "A spoonful of sugar" comes to mind.

Now while I don't treat nations that I view as hostile and rude with "kid gloves", I feel that either a public post or a private telegram to another new nation encouraging them helps a great deal.

That is IMHO because the criticism is viewed as not being constructive and viewed as an attack.

While you might argue that proposal authors should expect rude and hostile replies, I'm of the opinion that if you want this forum to be something other than being a "debate society" that perhaps regulars here should put away their tough and mean exterior and actually try to work with nations and not against them.

I agree. I am actually trying to convince other people to be nice to each other, and not just launch in to unwarrented and unprovoked attacks about proposals.

And I am trying to be a better person in this regard myself :}

(OOC)

I used to be on a BBS at Uni. There were a lot of rules about conduct on it - what you could say to people, the language and so forth.
It was a lot of fun, and made for a lot of interesting debates.

Then the BBS was taken out of the university and in to the public domain. And almost at once it degenerated in to name calling and hair pulling, with a lot of four letter words in to the bargin. And about a week later I just stopped visiting it because it wasn't fun any more.

Not that any of that is remotely relevent to this of course, but I just thought I would mention it!
(/OOC)

(Now before you go taking this as a personal attack, Mik, remember, you DID ask)

Frisbeeteria has a fundamental disagreement with what we see as the core argument in this topic, that the principal purpose of the UN is "being a place to help build better resolutions".

The UN forum, I'm not talking about the UN "Fris".

There is a big difference.

Let me ask you this ... you feel that the principal purpose of the UN is to weed out bad proposals, no? Do you feel you are really doing an effective job of it?

Few of the nations voting on UN resolutions are directly reading UN debates. We can assume this because no resolution thread has nearly 5,000 views in the past 10 months. And yet most all resolutions have easily past the 10,000 vote mark (doubled the 5,000 figure to account for delegate endorsements, which are likely not 100% of UN voting members in many regions).

It seems to me that we have a few choices ...

If we want to weed out "bad proposals" will being hostile help? I think not. I think it drives away nations that might be interested in our help, and that they still submit proposals, and just think, "Gee, there is somebody that needs to get laid!"

On the other hand, I've earned some great allies by offering an amendment (and by this I don't mean a "Yo nOObie, that is illegal you twit. My nation will campaign against this") and a chance to improve a proposal before it hits the floor. I honestly believe that if I were to ignore nations or treat them rudely, that they will walk away ... and that the quality of resolutions would return to the ones from many months ago.

OOC:
This is a tricky one since I have been guilty of using ‘4 debate cards of doom’ as so humorously pointed out, though I don’t feel by using them a player/nation is not making a contribution to a debate. I’ll try and elaborate what I mean here:

1) The "Sovereignty" Card:
Your resolution violates sovereignty! WE CAN NOT STAND FOR THIS.

Certainly many nations use this card, granted. Mostly I find though they are new nations who have only just joined the UN and don’t understand the mechanics of how the NSUN function. With a little help though from more experienced players, younger nations quickly learn the ropes and hopefully they start to help others.

So is there a reason this argument can be used legitimately? I believe so yes, because without exploring that possibility every issue will be an international issue and the other part of the game, namely the daily issues, will be completely forgotten. Very often a proposal will start of here and as it becomes clear its perhaps not an international concern, it is moved to the ‘Got issues’ forum, where one day we find we have to make a decision on it. I personally am a big fan of the daily issues, because it is here where the diversity of the player community is created and where we mould our nations to our personal visions.

I see this area as one of the fundamental aspects to the game and without having a little bit of a sovereignty discussion every once in a while, we forgo this interesting part of the game and I fear the game will become quite colourless if that happens.

2) The "UN isn't everybody" Card:
Your resolution will give a [military / economic] advantage to non-UN members. WE CAN NOT STAND FOR THIS.

I do actually see an issue here. I am not of the opinion that the UN is the only aspect of the game. There are vast numbers of players who exist quite happily without being in the UN and have rich and diverse RP’d history and I like that. We are all part of the same game here, when I think of ‘global’ I think of the whole NS world. Non-members who RP have and always will take advantage of UN resolutions when RP’ing against UN members and rightly so. However, because I understand that happens I consider those players and if I feel a particular proposal/resolution will unduly put UN members at a disadvantage especially in defence, I will consider this as an option.

That said, I have always lobbied for clauses in resolutions that will encourage UN members to lean on their RP agreements with non-members to help alleviate the problem. My thinking being, that if there is such a clause nations RP’ing will be able to be inventive and hopefully put them back on some sort of equal footing. Of course I realise the UN cannot directly influence non-members, but in this method we use an indirect form of persuasion. Besides I feel this approach also make for some interesting RP scenarios should players want to explore that.

3) The "Tech-Level" Card:
Your resolution ignores the nation of [insert obscure name of a civilization that may or may not even be in the UN, but is possibly active in roleplaying on another forum], HOW ARROGANT OF YOU!

This is an interesting matter and one, we the player community has more or less created. The initial conceptual design of the game was probably to exist terrestrially on Earth, however because of our ingenuity we have evolved the game away from that. Unfortunately this causes a problem because the cohesion of the game was the fact it existed on Earth. Change this and that cohesion is eroded. Now we are left with a challenge.

1. How to make future tech nations as inclusive in the UN as possible?
2. Ensure we have sufficient issues left open us without our future tech friends resolving every issue (e.g. environmental, technological etc) for us. Clearly if this happened there will be little to debate in the NSUN.

Considering also that the only frame of reference any of us has for debating issues is RL, we must be careful not to veer too far from that reality, otherwise all debate in NS will become virtual and I feel of little real value.

Resolving this paradox is not going to be easy, but I do have faith in the NS player community. Since it is this community that took a fairly simple game and evolved it to where we see it now. That did not happen without these disagreements and discussions, change is often a painful process.

4) The "Game Stat" Card:
Your resolution will destroy our [Civil Freedoms / Economy / Political Freedoms / secondary game stat]! The UN should never adopt any [Moral Decency / Political Stability / Environmental / Social Justice / Human Rights / International Peace and Security / Global Disarmament / the Further of Democracy] resolutions! They are all universally bad. WE WILL FIGHT YOU!

Considering the game’s reason for existing is to build a nation and the nation stats is an important aspect to that, I see this more as different nations having different agenda’s, very much like what happens in RL. When reviewing proposal/resolutions I feel it is only right for nations to view the effect it may have. Considering also that RP etiquette take in to account nations economies it is not surprising that players sometimes use this ‘card’ because it will directly effect their ability to effectively RP.

That said it should not be the only reason to scuttle a proposal by either the proposal author or the affected nation. What I feel is necessary here is for the author to respect this, but try and convince a nation why ‘in the bigger picture’ it is necessary for them to make that sacrifice. Equally I feel players need to be open minded when it comes to these type of proposals/resolutions and consider that ‘bigger picture’.

For myself this has been quite painful since for sometime now I have tried to build my economy. Unfortunately it seems to be flitting between ‘Developing’ and ‘Good’, but this is largely due to the effect of some UN resolutions. Now I accepted this might happen, but felt the greater good of passing a resolution was worth the sacrifice in the end.

In closing and I am sure having reached this bit by now you are thinking, “thank heavens!” I feel the reason these four topics come up time and time again is because they are the core issues players consider first and will therefore always come up time and time again.

Of course this all just my personal opinion and my apologies for the length of this post, I got a little carried away. Right, I’m off now to have a cup of tea and to ponder the meaning of existence. :D

Do we use debate-killer tactics sometimes? Damn straight. Are they always deserved? Of course not. Are they sometimes deserved? You better believe it buddy, at least from our perspective.

This isn't a model UN, churning out exactly the same sorts of non-binding drivel the RL UN does. Resolutions here have "real" effects on game nations, and understanding the relationship of the UN to the way the game is played is more important than adhering to some debate standard from the RL UN.

You want realism? How about a UN that is so fractured by bickering that they can't arrive at consensus on much of anything? That's realistic. No real-world legislative body can debate issues like abortion or nuclear weapons for 4 days of approvals, and arrive at a fair vote in another four. No, they bat it around forever, and never get it on the calendar. That's a GOOD thing in our view. Let the locals decide.

If you want the locals to decided everything, what is the point of a UN? Honestly why is your nation a member of the UN if you feel that days of debate with nothing to show for it is good?

As for killer debates in this forum? I've not really seen many. I've been spending more time in the General forum, where they might not use kid gloves, but I've found more geniune and "killer" debates.

The "Cards of Doom" have been so over played, that it really boggles my mind to watch the same nations saying the exact same thing each time.

By now, I'd think that nations that vote no often would have pre-made anti-Global Disarmament, Human Rights, Environmental, Social Justice, and Moral Decency statements in hand. Think of the beauty of it ... if the "Cards of Doom" are valid, why not just make an old usenet styled "flame form" ... whoops, I didn't mean to suggest that these are flames ... "disagreement form" and reuse that. Or better yet ... just save the insults altogether and say, "The following proposal violates rules 1, 3, and 4. Have a nice day."

I say this in jest, but I honestly think it has come to this point, because I've seen nations (including yourself) ask, "Why aren't the authors coming to this forum?" You asked ... and I have an answer: there is no point. Nations are voting without coming here, and at best they can expect nations repeating the same things over and over again:

Your arrogant attempt to violate my sovereignty not only is illegal because it is a game mechanics violation, but is really not worthy of the UN's consideration. You are welcome for the help I've provided you. Try again kiddo.

OOC:
This is a tricky one since I have been guilty of using ‘4 debate cards of doom’ as so humorously pointed out, though I don’t feel by using them a player/nation is not making a contribution to a debate.

Actually, I should reiterate that I feel each of the 4 Cards of Doom is actually based in a very solid issue.

As Hotrod pointed out, sometimes sovereingty is an issue and sometimes its not ... it really depends on a nation's opinions.

My complaint is more how nations who will argue for a political stability resolution or an environmental resolution, which does impact all nations will complain when the soveriegnty card is played against their proposal, but will a month later pick up that same card and drop it on other resolutions.

I'd hate to think that some other player would read my nation's old statements from Feb. - Apr. 2004 and then use my earlier arguments to counter act my old ones. But it could be easily done.

At the time I took the "old man" approach and dropped each of these cards. "Your resolution looks good, but I disagree with the STRONG classification. Therefore I'm going to vote no. But if you can spend another month collecting endorsements again, I might vote yes next time if you make it MILD."

It is a fair thing to say. Without a doubt. (Though few resolutions have failed to come back to the floor -- so it is something of a death sentence too.) But it does seem to me that we all have to be a bit guarded in using these cards, assuming we want this forum to be more than a debate society.

That is why I added the poll here too ... which I'm surprised to see how many regulars have replied (pleased, but a bit surprised too ... the amount of amendments we collectively claim to make should imply that there have been some GREAT resolutions passed -- oh wait, I am actually happy with the resolutions, at least well enough to frequently vote in favour of them).

I honestly believe that if I were to ignore nations or treat them rudely, that they will walk away ... and that the quality of resolutions would return to the ones from many months ago.

So, you're advocating potentially flaming a nation away from the UN in order to better it? That's not only sick, that's exactly what hinders the very process you speak of in this thread.

So, you're advocating potentially flaming a nation away from the UN in order to better it? That's not only sick, that's exactly what hinders the very process you speak of in this thread.

No you've completely twisted the context!

I don't like the quality of the resolutions long ago when nations seemed to be at each others throats (example the Axis of Evil resolution). I'm actually advocating that by being polite, more nations will stay here. And that the quality of resolutions will improve.

Tuesday, in the moderation forum you claimed your earlier posts were not flames on me. You are now twisting my words and trying to imply that I'm advocating flaming nations. I'm not, but I will now ask for the moderators to look into this, because yesterday you publically claimed I was asked to leave several off-site forums, when you knew that *one* person asked me to leave the Old Guard UN forum. You were misrepresenting information then ... and it was viewed as an attack.

I think you are purposefully doing it now too.

Do you now see why I don't trust you anymore?

To be honest, I'm only against resolutions I see as weakening the position of the UN or, to be frank, being as far from practical as requiring all political candidates to juggle tortoises to prove their leadership skills. Other than that, I stay out of them unless they really interest me or I am asked to place a post for an ally of mine.

No you've completely twisted the context!

No, I didn't. I'm simply trying to ascertain exactly what you mean.

I don't like the quality of the resolutions long ago when nations seemed to be at each others throats (example the Axis of Evil resolution). I'm actually advocating that by being polite, more nations will stay here. And that the quality of resolutions will improve.

Thank-you for explaining that further, because your original statement did not explain it in this manner.

Tuesday, in the moderation forum you claimed your earlier posts were not flames on me. You are now twisting my words and trying to imply that I'm advocating flaming nations. I'm not, but I will now ask for the moderators to look into this, because yesterday you publically claimed I was asked to leave several off-site forums, when you knew that *one* person asked me to leave the Old Guard UN forum. You were misrepresenting information then ... and it was viewed as an attack.

And, I retracted my statement as a typo, didn't you notice? You were the only one who thought it was an attack, I didn't see a single other person advocating it as an attack.

I have done nothing of the sort, in regards to the bolded text, I am simply trying to figure out exactly what you're saying through your superflous verbose use of the English language. Any other reasonably-minded individual would have come to the same conclusion.

I think you are purposefully doing it now too.

No, I'm not. I'm debating, and you don't appreciate it when people disagree with you.

Do you now see why I don't trust you anymore?

I don't give a damn if you trust me or not, NationStates isn't the real world, buddy, and I couldn't care less whether or not what you think of me. I'm not going to stand by and let you take over the UN forum with propaganda and baseless accusations of personal attacks when their are none. Simple as that.

The United Nations, in RL and NS, is about concluding to a point of legislation that is acceptable. Unfortunately, because or arguments and hijacks like this, its task can never be fully accomplished.

If you'd step back for awhile and reflect on why you personally - as many of us have done - are "attacked" when discussing issues, you'll see it comes from the hostility we're met by those who ask for feedback.

If you want the locals to decided everything, what is the point of a UN? Honestly why is your nation a member of the UN if you feel that days of debate with nothing to show for it is good?

As for killer debates in this forum? I've not really seen many.
When you read my posts, try reading the words in the order I type. Debate-killers are the polar opposite of killer debates.

As to why I remain in the UN - it's the same reason that I remain a member of a RL political party. While I have no hope of changing the course of the party, my primary vote can at least work against those who would take the party in dirrections I disagree with. I think a divided government is good government - if they can't get anything accomplished, they at least can't do harm.

As to your "humorous examples" intended to reflect my style, along with your insults towards Tuesday Heights over a misinterpretation on either your part or hers, I've had enough of this flame-baiting and trolling. Find someone else to use as your "bad example". I'm done here.

I'm done here.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm out.

I'm debating, and you don't appreciate it when people disagree with you.

I'm not going to stand by and let you take over the UN forum with propaganda and baseless accusations of personal attacks when their are none.

I still don't feel this is a discussion or debate.

Calling me "sick" and then implying that I'm trying to take over the UN forum with propaganda and baseless accusations is a flame.

I think there is a difference between putting words in somebody's mouth and asking for clarification. That is just my opinion though.

[Apologies if this is a double post, but my connection seems slow and I wonder if my first reply was lost.]

Mikivity, I have seen you on here arguing your best against what people are saying without considering them, and in some cases twisting words (like Frisbeeteria's), on this topic, while meeting one poster with open hostility over something I wasn't entirely sure over the meaning of. And the irony is you are complaining about people being met with hostility when you are using some of the same hostile tactics. In short: You just undermined your own arguement.

Normally I would prefer not to do this, but I have to conclude, based on the above evidence, that your whole arguement is hypocritical. The reason: You argue against it, and yet have done it in your own thread.

This is my final post on this topic. I have said all I want to and am washing my hands of it.

Normally I would prefer not to do this, but I have to conclude, based on the above evidence, that your whole arguement is hypocritical. The reason: You argue against it, and yet have done it in your own thread.

This is my final post on this topic. I have said all I want to and am washing my hands of it.

:( I'm sorry to hear this, as your opinions have always been kind. I did not mean to switch killer debate from the original debate killer. I think that when double teamed (in one case for something that I feel is angry directed at me for yesterdays thread) it is hard to not make honest mistakes.

I've actually appreciated Frisbeeteria's work on NSWiki. I think many of the nations here look up to him and that he sets the tone for NS UN debates. I certainly have.

I've apologized in private to him, and while I don't think it would improve his opinion of me (he was very angry and I'm actually pretty upset now by this), I would be happy to make a public apology and fix things if I could. If anybody has suggestions, I would like to find a way to make everybody here more comfortable and I'm open to those ideas, because you are right personal attacks always make things worse, and I am no exception.

If anybody has suggestions, I would like to find a way to make everybody here more comfortable and I'm open to those ideas, because you are right personal attacks always make things worse, and I am no exception.

While I did say I'm done here, I think suggestions at this point are the only way to try and fix whatever losses the UN forum is taking on lately.

First, we - as players - have to remember this is a game. I am not immune, and it sounds like you, too, realize you are not immune to this factor. We are not really diplomats, UN ambassadors, national leaders; we are merely portraying ideologies in a method of our devise.

Second, let's face it: The UN forum is addictive, especially when working on an agenda of what one's placed value on. I'm not saying "agenda" is a bad thing, I'm just saying that sometimes are agendas get in the way of us actually being civil, because we all want to be right at the end of the day.

Third, personally, I stepped away from debating you in the UN forums a long time ago during our first spat because I didn't like the way you took criticism and I through it right back at you, as is what happened here with our recent fall-out. I'd love to try and work through it, because I really enjoyed working with you on the UNA/NUNAA, whatever we're calling it now.

I, too, have been out of hand, but I think between you and I, Mik, we see the UN very similarily, but it's the minor differences that kick us in the ass. Case in point, our last two days in the forums.

If you feel that there's something save with the NUNAA/UNA organization but more importantly with our relationship, you know how to contact me, because I will miss our e-mail exchanges and working with you despite our differences.