NationStates Jolt Archive

To Whom It May Concern:
First and formost, the UN is not a nation and has no right to govern me. Just because I joined this "club", and that's all it really is, doesn't mean that I have no say in what I have to do or not do. The United Nations does not have the right to push, for example, Gay Marraige onto my people. If all of the people in my country are against it then I shouldn't have to abide by that rule. My own government did not adopt that ruling and I should not be held to it. If in my own government it was decided to go along with that ruling, then fine. But untill then my government will not accept it, and frankly, you can try and make me. Honostly, I'm waiting for the "Let's All Get Along Act" in which you have to wear special glasses that makes everybody exactly equal in appearance to everybody else. Maybe if this does not change then there should be a new "club" in which the government of each individual state gets to choose what it accepts and does not accept. Kind of like the United Nations in the real world. ;)

-Republic of Oktoc

Watch me not care.

Whatever happened to that official "I hate the UN" thread?

Seriously, though, we get posts like this so often, it's kind of boring after a while. If you don't like the UN, nobody is forcing you to join.

The Official "I Hate the UN" thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351794)


As for gay marriage, Oktoc, you got that when you clicked the 'accept' link in your email. Gnomes from the Compliance Ministry automatically added all existing UN law to your nations Code of Jurisprudence, and you are obligated to follow those laws as long as you're a member.


Better resign, quick, 'fore one of those nasty gays touches you or something. We'd hate for you to be infected with 'gayness'.

How about you add something instead of posting without really saying anything. All I am saying is that things should not be pushed onto the countries, and they should be debated by each region. This whole thing is entirely based on the U.N. so not being a member is not an option. But changes are.

Actually, it is an option, believe it or not. You chose to join, it was not automatic. The fact that the UN makes up 1/3 of the game is not a requirement for you to join. If you would like to propose a change to the game, go to the tech forum. But I really doubt Sal or Max will do anything.

And all I'm saying is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the UN in NationStates, an argument we hear in these forums about twice a day.

UN FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/86713/page=faq#UN): 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 hard coded into the game. It's not going to change. Five thousand more bitter threads won't alter it. That's the way it is. So mote it be. Ain't no chance of changing it. Amen.

Good thing we've never had to explain this before, isn't it?

But in the real UN each country's government accepts or refuses to honor a resolution. Why is it not the case here? Did the person who made this not actually understand what the United Nations was and just put the name to it? Who knows. :confused:

Good thing we've never had to explain this before, isn't it?
Yes, it would be a REAL pain to keep responding to these threads.

(end sarcasm)

Could a mod lock this, or send it to the "I hate the UN thread" please?

But in the real UN each country's government accepts or refuses to honor a resolution. Why is it not the case here? Did the person who made this not actually understand what the United Nations was and just put the name to it? Who knows. :confused:
If you don't like a resolution, don't vote for it. If it passes, too bad. Live with it, it's not the end of the world. And as we have said at least three times now, YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO BE A UN MEMBER. Quit complaining.

I'm sorry for standing up and trying to make a change for the better. I'm sure that if you ever had your own opinions about things like that that you would just roll over and take it. Since this whole UN is not actually true to the real world in any way i see no reason to be a part of it. I can't stand to be a part of a group of nations where it is being debated whether it is LEGAL to have sex with your siblings. Maybe I'll make my own UN style club that actually is correct.

Maybe I'll make my own UN style club that actually is correct.

I'd encourage you to do just that ... but first ...

Stick around for a while and see how things are run here. You can learn from our mistakes and build a better international union. Some of us might ask to join that body as well.

[OOC: In the real world, when people tell me they don't like political parties, I nearly always ask them if they've actually ever attended a county or city level meeting first. Sometimes these organizations still can provide some valuable experiences, even if they are bad ones, that you can learn from. What is good away from your computer may also be useful here too.]

I can't stand to be a part of a group of nations where it is being debated whether it is LEGAL to have sex with your siblings.

When did we start debating that? Just don't try to pass any proposals that create parallel UN's - that will get you deleted in the long run.

First, why would that get me banned and second there's a proposal (or it might have already passed) saying that any sex between to consenting adults in their own home is legal. Meaning you could have sex with your sister or brother or both. Not to mention parents, and probably could be extended to all sex that's not with a minor legal. Meaning pets. The llama lobby is pissed, honostly.

When did we start debating that? Just don't try to pass any proposals that create parallel UN's - that will get you deleted in the long run.

I think there was a proposal, or at least a debate about a proposal, regarding incest. I can remember debating it at some point, I just can't remember when or where.

First, why would that get me banned and second there's a proposal (or it might have already passed) saying that any sex between to consenting adults in their own home is legal. Meaning you could have sex with your sister or brother or both. Not to mention parents, and probably could be extended to all sex that's not with a minor legal. Meaning pets. The llama lobby is pissed, honostly.

I think it would get you banned because proposals that attempt to alter the way the game works are illegal. Mostly because it is a bugger to recode the game when anyone suggests something new and exciting and shiny :}

Secondly - there is a resolution that says "whatever goes on between consenting adults is legal". I am pretty sure that llamas are not consenting adults. And - despite what you are going to think of me when I write this - if a brother and a sister are both adults, and both consent, then what business of yours is it what they do? Are they hurting you because they are having sex? Are they causing you pain or suffering? No. So - you know - deal with it.

But in the real UN each country's government accepts or refuses to honor a resolution. Why is it not the case here? Did the person who made this not actually understand what the United Nations was and just put the name to it? Who knows. :confused:

Maybe, and this is just speaking as a former software developer, the creator of the game thought that it might make the game a tad too complicated to write. There are - what? - 80 resolutions, and a potential for around 37,000 votes in relation to each resolution.

So for each resolution the game would have to store around 37,000 records - one for each nation that voted. And it would have to remember which nation voted in which way - for or against or abstained.

Then (and this is the bit I am not clear about cause I didn't write this game) when issues and so forth come up, it would have to process each nation dependent on what they voted in any of the UN resolutions that would affect the issue.

So instead of having a single system - the issues relate to what UN resolutions have passed, but only if you are in the UN - the game becomes a whole lot more complicated with thousands and thousands of data records to process, and (I suppose) thousands of lines of code to do the processing. Which would only serve to make it slower, harder to maintain and on the whole would not actually add that much to it.

I say go Max and company for doing a good enough job to begin with, and not ripping in to them just because you joined the UN without reading the rules and regulations about it first (no offense)

Ha!! Sorry - I realise this is going to play in to the hands of the person who started this thread, but I KNEW we had debated this at some point!!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361517&highlight=incest

I'm sorry, but when I saw this game I thought it was about nations and issues that change the world. When I saw the UN part I thought it was actually based on the UN. The only thing it has the same would be the name and left wing nuts trying to save trees. That's where the similarities end. The entire UN voting system was set up to stop things like this. So that makes this game basically a "let's make a world where WE can win the political battles" as opposed to the real world. Peace.

And oh ya to sell the book as well. Which is why it was not thought out as well as it could have.

I'm sorry, but when I saw this game I thought it was about nations and issues that change the world. When I saw the UN part I thought it was actually based on the UN. The only thing it has the same would be the name and left wing nuts trying to save trees. That's where the similarities end. The entire UN voting system was set up to stop things like this. So that makes this game basically a "let's make a world where WE can win the political battles" as opposed to the real world. Peace.

As opposed to right-wing gun nuts who want to destroy the world? As opposed to religious zealots trying to convert the world?

The UN is a democracy, and everyone has an equal voice. UN Delegates have *slightly* more power in that they get to approve things before we mere mortals get to vote on them. But that is a still a democractic process.

And you don't want to get me started about the real UN, and how democractic that is, and how it's proposals change the world.

And oh ya to sell the book as well. Which is why it was not thought out as well as it could have.

The book or the game? Cause the book was pretty good :} (So is the game, but now I just sound like I am sucking up, so I will stop!)

To Whom It May Concern:
First and formost, the UN is not a nation and has no right to govern me. Just because I joined this "club", and that's all it really is, doesn't mean that I have no say in what I have to do or not do. The United Nations does not have the right to push, for example, Gay Marraige onto my people. If all of the people in my country are against it then I shouldn't have to abide by that rule. My own government did not adopt that ruling and I should not be held to it. If in my own government it was decided to go along with that ruling, then fine. But untill then my government will not accept it, and frankly, you can try and make me. Honostly, I'm waiting for the "Let's All Get Along Act" in which you have to wear special glasses that makes everybody exactly equal in appearance to everybody else. Maybe if this does not change then there should be a new "club" in which the government of each individual state gets to choose what it accepts and does not accept. Kind of like the United Nations in the real world. ;)

-Republic of Oktoc

Given that you are new, and you've joined the NSUN, you already accepted gay marriage as legal upon inception... since, despite the present proposed resolution up for vote (which is apparantly written, approved of, and supported by people who are as inept at reviewing already established legislation before proposing new ones), gay marriage was already legalized under previous NSUN resolution (and it would have been so when you applied, and therefore despite your pathetic discourse, you accepted, even if it was out of ignorance for your own failure to read the stipulations of the contract before signing).

But in the real UN each country's government accepts or refuses to honor a resolution. Why is it not the case here? Did the person who made this not actually understand what the United Nations was and just put the name to it? Who knows. :confused:

The name "United Nations" was just tossed up there to imply world government.

Anyways, in the NS2 forum, months ago I suggested that after a UN resolution is adopted, that nations will have access to another menu: a real compliance ministry. We could then click on a button that would say if we choose to adopt the resolution or not, and we'd have two things that could happen:

1) Adopting the resolution would move our game stats as dictated by the resolution.

2) Ingoring the resolution (a real world option) would: (1) increase our "non-compliance" rating for that category, but no status change in the category itself, and (2) increase our civil unrest.

With this second option, I also had in mind the ability for economic stability to be tied into nations in your "political or economic bloc". As your compliance rating hit a low threshold, citizens in other nations would choose to avoid travel to your country and purchasing your products ... so effectively you'd isolate your nation from the world community and your economy would drop.

Would this be hard to create? Not really. Plenty of other games incorporate "attitude" meters that inihibit or enhance trade. As a bonus, complying with a UN resolution should move your nation up the "compliance" scale, giving you the ability to slack off a bit in the future.

But this is really getting into the area of NS2 discussions.

I'm sorry for standing up and trying to make a change for the better.

If you really want to make this UN better (since it's unlikely that the rules will change), you should stick around and offer proposals you like, organize like-minded regional delegates, and repeal some of these resolutions. If the UN is made up just of people that support all the resolutions it's passed then there'd be no sense in adding repeals. I can help. There are lots of telegramming strategies that have been proven to gather approvals. Most of these tactics don't come form me (in fact, I'm not sure I use any original TG innovations in my proposal writing), but I am aware of quite a few of them--and the other forum members are even more aware of them than I am.

Anyway, you can repeal resolutions. If you're unhappy with the UN, I suggest you start there.

It's really very simple. If you don't like the resolutions passed by the UN, you don't have to be a member of it. Note, for example, that I am not a UN member. I still find NS entertaining, and interact with other nations on the forums, and have a voice in the region I am in, and so forth.

This is not the real world, it is not based on the real world, and there is no reason why the NSUN should be restricted to the same level of power as the RLUN.

Why does it really matter?

The UN is a democracy, and everyone has an equal voice. UN Delegates have *slightly* more power in that they get to approve things before we mere mortals get to vote on them.
And they get an extra vote for each endorsement they have.

Nations opposed to the U.N. may consider joining the International Congress, an unofficial (due to game rules) alternative to the U.N.: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=373409

The name "United Nations" was just tossed up there to imply world government.

Anyways, in the NS2 forum, months ago I suggested that after a UN resolution is adopted, that nations will have access to another menu: a real compliance ministry. We could then click on a button that would say if we choose to adopt the resolution or not, and we'd have two things that could happen:

1) Adopting the resolution would move our game stats as dictated by the resolution.

2) Ingoring the resolution (a real world option) would: (1) increase our "non-compliance" rating for that category, but no status change in the category itself, and (2) increase our civil unrest.

With this second option, I also had in mind the ability for economic stability to be tied into nations in your "political or economic bloc". As your compliance rating hit a low threshold, citizens in other nations would choose to avoid travel to your country and purchasing your products ... so effectively you'd isolate your nation from the world community and your economy would drop.

Would this be hard to create? Not really. Plenty of other games incorporate "attitude" meters that inihibit or enhance trade. As a bonus, complying with a UN resolution should move your nation up the "compliance" scale, giving you the ability to slack off a bit in the future.

But this is really getting into the area of NS2 discussions.

Serious question.

When you dream at night, is it in NS?

And they get an extra vote for each endorsement they have.

Really? I did not know that :}

Calm down, Oktoc. If the current resolution up for vote passes, like it looks like it will, all beliefs will be officially equal in the eyes of the UN, with no clause added regarding whether the beliefs make any sense or not. So if your UN ambassador believes that banning gay marriage does not violate the UN resolution legalizing gay marriage, then the UN is forced to respect that, and you're set. :)

I agree with the author that the UN just plain sucks. First of all, it should look like the real UN at least on a few things. But in the real UN, people actually care about what they give their vote to. Most of the voters here just take 1min to chose if they should vote or no.


There are many ways to fix that. First of all, automatically create a thread to discuss each resolution, and people who do not go to that thread can't vote for it. Another way would be to only let regional delegates vote. A third one would be that moderators study each proposal and start an argument about the resolutions, just like on the issues. None of these things being done, I'll just leave the UN.

Calm down, Oktoc. If the current resolution up for vote passes, like it looks like it will, all beliefs will be officially equal in the eyes of the UN, with no clause added regarding whether the beliefs make any sense or not. So if your UN ambassador believes that banning gay marriage does not violate the UN resolution legalizing gay marriage, then the UN is forced to respect that, and you're set. :)


Or you can say, ALL UN RESOLUTIONS ARE NOW VOID.
the simple fact that this resolution is being passed shows the terrible thing the UN are. *leaving*

Calm down, Oktoc. If the current resolution up for vote passes, like it looks like it will, all beliefs will be officially equal in the eyes of the UN, with no clause added regarding whether the beliefs make any sense or not. So if your UN ambassador believes that banning gay marriage does not violate the UN resolution legalizing gay marriage, then the UN is forced to respect that, and you're set. :)

I am not an expert on the legalities of the UN, but I suspect that this resolution has no power to overturn previous resolutions. So until Gay Rights is repealed, you can't ban gay marriage. Regardless of this resolution.

But (looks upwards) surely there must be some people out there who are experts on the UN :}

I agree with the author that the UN just plain sucks. First of all, it should look like the real UN at least on a few things. But in the real UN, people actually care about what they give their vote to. Most of the voters here just take 1min to chose if they should vote or no.


There are many ways to fix that. First of all, automatically create a thread to discuss each resolution, and people who do not go to that thread can't vote for it. Another way would be to only let regional delegates vote. A third one would be that moderators study each proposal and start an argument about the resolutions, just like on the issues. None of these things being done, I'll just leave the UN.

Bye bye.

Or you can say, ALL UN RESOLUTIONS ARE NOW VOID.
the simple fact that this resolution is being passed shows the terrible thing the UN are. *leaving*

I will admit that the resolution at vote is not the best example of what the UN can produce, but there have been a number of resolutions that are well written, lucid and very, very good.

But if it passes, it passes. That's why democracy is so much fun :}

I am not an expert on the legalities of the UN, but I suspect that this resolution has no power to overturn previous resolutions. So until Gay Rights is repealed, you can't ban gay marriage. Regardless of this resolution.

Very true. But I have a belief that immediatly executing anyone involved in attempting a same-sex marriage is not the same thing as banning gay marriage, and all beliefs are equal.

Very true. But I have a belief that immediatly executing anyone involved in attempting a same-sex marriage is not the same thing as banning gay marriage, and all beliefs are equal.

See - if you had said that you executed them *after* they married that would not be an issue :}

But - to be a tad more serious - just because you have that belief doesn't mea you can act on it. This resolution does not spell out that acting on a belief is teh same as having it. So it can be argued that this resolution does not give you the right to execute people by it's authority. And it does not give you the right to ban gay marriage.

And - on an even more serious note, which doesn't belong in this thread - I have to find out what effects this resolution would have in regard to all past and future resolutions.

So it can be argued that this resolution does not give you the right to execute people by it's authority. And it does not give you the right to ban gay marriage.

ahh, but what if I believe it gives me the right to ban gay marriage? If all beliefs are considered equal under UN mandate, without a clause regarding to whether they make sense or not, everything's fair game.

Although this might not have such a large impact on the way the game runs, I have asked for an explanation/clarification about the impact of this proposal on the way it would interact with UN resolutions both past and present.

I think that atleast the UN vote should choose what issues our nations deal with atleast. But that might be too simple for some :p

I think that atleast the UN vote should choose what issues our nations deal with atleast. But that might be too simple for some :p

So we can pass a resolution to forbid slavery in the UN, except for those who vote against it?

First and formost, the UN is not a nation and has no right to govern me.

When you sign up for the United Nations, you do so under the pretense that the NS UN has the right to impose laws and sanctions on your country as part of your service in the international community and as a member-nation of the body.

Just because I joined this "club", and that's all it really is, doesn't mean that I have no say in what I have to do or not do.

The United Nations is not a club. Any nation that believes that this is nothing more than an extracurricular activity for its government should reprioritize its place within the body as an active member.

The United Nations does not have the right to push, for example, Gay Marraige onto my people. If all of the people in my country are against it then I shouldn't have to abide by that rule. My own government did not adopt that ruling and I should not be held to it. If in my own government it was decided to go along with that ruling, then fine.

Then, campaign against such issues, but yes, signing up for the UN creates the ability for it to propose/legislate such laws on your country. You must understand that when you sign up. It doesn't matter if you joined prior to a law being passed, because, you are still expected as a UN member-nation to adhere to the laws and legislation of the NS UN body.

Mechanically, however, and OOC response now: When you join the UN as a nation, no previous resolution passed actually affects your game description, civil rights, economy, or political freedoms.

Now back to IC responses...

But untill then my government will not accept it, and frankly, you can try and make me.

Technically, anybody could come after you if you openly discussed not following a UN law. Of course, you could also ignore them and then be disgraced within the NS world. Such is your path to choose.

Honostly, I'm waiting for the "Let's All Get Along Act" in which you have to wear special glasses that makes everybody exactly equal in appearance to everybody else.

Well, we did have the hippo proposals... Unfortunately, the quality of UN proposals is horrible, let's face it, but instead of complaining about it nations must act and do something about it.

Maybe if this does not change then there should be a new "club" in which the government of each individual state gets to choose what it accepts and does not accept.

Yes, there is a club, it's called "the go it alone club," where nations don't join the NS UN, don't post in the UN forums, and confine themselves to daily issues, telegrams, and the occasional forum post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351794