NationStates Jolt Archive

u·nit·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-ntd) adj.
1. Combined into a single entity.
2. Concerned with, produced by, or resulting from mutual action.
3. Being in harmony; agreed.

[www.dictionary.com]

The Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland will no longer support any resolutions that simply recommend, suggest, ask, or request and action to be taken by the nations in the UNITED Nations. The reasoning behind this is simple: The United Nations should be combined into a single entity, mutually act upon each other, AND be in harmony and agreement with the laws that it passes. Any further arguments about "national sovereignty" (as it is called) have no bearing on the United Nations, as far as the Kingdom of Tihland is concerned.

This topic was discussed somewhat in the thread concerning the current U.N. resolution up to vote. Here's more explanation towards the topic of this thread:

National sovereignity is imaginary. I believe there should be no political boundaries. We should all be unified towards a common goal. It's time to stop flooding the U.N. books with beaucratic, administrative nonsense that does nothing for no one. It's time to do something in this organization once and for all! We are called the United Nations, not the Allied Nations! If we were just allied, then national sovereignity would be justified, but we are not. We are United, a word with much stronger meaning than allied! As such, there are laws that we must all agree to enforce completely, no questions asked!

Not all nations have to join the U.N. If a nation does not wish to comply with the laws, then they should leave the U.N. It's time for the U.N. to stop trying to persuade nations to stay or join. Let the nation or leaders of that nation decide whether or not they will join or stay in the U.N.

I believe that the U.N. system does have its flaws, like every other system in existence, including (but not limited to) democracy. Democracy is inefficient and time-wasting, but the majority of people do benefit from a higher standard of living under a democratic system. Of course, democracy should also do what it can to protect the minority from harm from the majority. That's the part that most people seem to forget.

In order to make the U.N. better, I believe we should set up an actual governmental system with legislative, executive, and judicial branches and even more if we need them. What do you think?

That the United Nations it not meant to be a federal government, and it would establish all sorts of dangerous precedents if it is treated as such.

The purpose of the UN is laid out in the FAQ. Read it, know it, love it. Repeatedly.

I tried that, but it only makes it sticky and hard to read.

Fascinating

The UN is an international organization, and while a state expects to give up some sovereignty when joining such an organization, it does not disappear completely. The absolute concept of sovereignty is only an ideal, but all of international relations is based upon it.

First of all, I'm not necessarily talking about the NationStates U.N. I'm well aware of the limitations of the NationStates U.N.

Are any of you familiar with the United States of America? There are these things called states that have sovereignty over their land. However, the federal government has sovereignty over that. What I am simply suggesting is that a higher level have sovereignty over that. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with a federal government over state governments in the U.S.

Notice the equivalence there: UNITED States.....UNITED Nations....What else is there to say?

The UN is already, in its own fashion, set up that way. And, just for the record, some of us think that system partially illogical.

In order to make the U.N. better, I believe we should set up an actual governmental system with
Here we go.
legislative,
That's us.
executive
That's the UN Gnomes.
judicial branches
That could be the ICJ (which has been deleted by the Mods).

For absolutely no good reason, Vastiva announces it's population has reached


1.337 billion


We have achieved "elite" status.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal bickering, already in progress.

:D

First of all, I'm not necessarily talking about the NationStates U.N. I'm well aware of the limitations of the NationStates U.N.

Are any of you familiar with the United States of America? There are these things called states that have sovereignty over their land. However, the federal government has sovereignty over that. What I am simply suggesting is that a higher level have sovereignty over that. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with a federal government over state governments in the U.S.

Notice the equivalence there: UNITED States.....UNITED Nations....What else is there to say?

And forgive me if I am wrong, but aren't there a lot of arguements about what the federal government can and can not do? That it has limited power because a lot of stuff is deemed to be a state level thing, rather than a federal level thing?

If that is the case, then why should member nations not retain the right to govern some of their own affairs, without the UN being permitted to interfere?

For absolutely no good reason, Vastiva announces it's population has reached



We have achieved "elite" status.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal bickering, already in progress.

:D

Go you!! Hurray!!!

First of all, I'm not necessarily talking about the NationStates U.N.

Then take it to General. This forum is for talking about the NS UN, not the real one.

The purpose of the UN is laid out in the FAQ. Read it, know it, love it. Repeatedly.

I was told that what was written there, is now somewhat outdated. The UN has developed since then.

That could be the ICJ (which has been deleted by the Mods).

Sigh! :(

For absolutely no good reason, Vastiva announces it's population has reached



We have achieved "elite" status.

Thank you. We now return you to your normal bickering, already in progress.

:D

That's awesome! I've never had 1.337 population (AFAIK), but I always have a bit of a chuckle when my postcount reaches that number. :)

I was told that what was written there, is now somewhat outdated. The UN has developed since then.

Indeed. Going by the FAQ is basically saying, "That's what we're going to believe because Max said so."

I was told that what was written there, is now somewhat outdated. The UN has developed since then.

The developments of the UN away from it were deleted by the mods a long time ago. Even now the occasional piece of development is deleted because it would take the UN beyond what the FAQ has designated. I have yet to see anything we have passed that hasn't been deleted which cannot be covered by then FAQ.

Indeed. Going by the FAQ is basically saying, "That's what we're going to believe because Max said so."

Considering he owns the site, chooses who he will allow to be admins, can edit the UN at any time he feels like, and has dictated quite a few of the rules of the site, common sense says that is a logical path to take. Being as it's his site, he is effectively god here. He doesn't have to maintain the site, doesn't have to allow us to post here, and if he wishes he can ban anyone for any reason he feels like. His site, his property, his rules. I'll tell you what I tell all, newbie or not, who complain about it: This isn't your site, so if you don't like it you can leave.

Considering he owns the site, chooses who he will allow to be admins, can edit the UN at any time he feels like, and has dictated quite a few of the rules of the site, common sense says that is a logical path to take. Being as it's his site, he is effectively god here. He doesn't have to maintain the site, doesn't have to allow us to post here, and if he wishes he can ban anyone for any reason he feels like. His site, his property, his rules. I'll tell you what I tell all, newbie or not, who complain about it: This isn't your site, so if you don't like it you can leave.

1. When he starts enforcing roleplay conventions, they'll be rules. Until then, they're just his opinions.

2. If I didn't like the site, I would have left a long time ago. I wasn't doing any complaining about Max or the site. I very much like the site, actually. If I didn't, I never would have started a (roleplay) religion based around Max as deity of our world.

3. Choosing to follow what Max says has nothing to do with logic. As per your post, it has to do with one's personal sense of etiquette and/or self-preservation.

1. When he starts enforcing roleplay conventions, they'll be rules. Until then, they're just his opinions.

You have no logical basis for this. For one thing, what he put in the FAQ is what is put down as official rules. If you bother to pay careful attention, you'll find what the mods and admins hands out as rulings in most cases are based entirely upon what Max put in the FAQ. The whole issue of region invasion rules, for example, was covered first by Max when he said:

Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?
No. Region crashing by itself is a legitimate tactic to seize power, but ejecting large numbers of nations is griefing. It can be a fine line between region crashing and griefing. Players who enjoy launching invasions should take care to stay on the right side.

The basics of what we can and cannot post are covered here:

What can't I post?
Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
This applies to your nation's name, motto, and other customizable fields, any messages you write, images you post, or any other content you upload or link to NationStates. If you do, your nation will be deleted. See the site's Terms & Conditions for details.

Also prohibited is the practice of "griefing." Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you.

And I have seen multiple occasions when mods specifically refer to that answer. GMC, for example, has posted the first portion of that at least fours times in response to questions that I know of. Now if we have mods turning around and using that to justify their rulings, it kinda makes sense to assume that's a lot more than just "his opinions."

Oh, and the following is really important:

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?
Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

If you had read that portion, where Max states outright that he's making the rules, you wouldn't have wasted time with an arguement about it.

2. If I didn't like the site, I would have left a long time ago. I wasn't doing any complaining about Max or the site. I very much like the site, actually. If I didn't, I never would have started a (roleplay) religion based around Max as deity of our world.

My response is a personal annoyance from many forums where the people come and then whine about the policies of the site owner. If you don't like them, leave. If you wish to stay, stop whining about it and annoying the rest of us. Either way, you cannot change it just because you don't like who is in charge.

3. Choosing to follow what Max says has nothing to do with logic. As per your post, it has to do with one's personal sense of etiquette and/or self-preservation.

Actually, it has to do with logic and paying attention to mod rulings. The rules about how the UN works, the rules about what you can and cannot post, and the basics of region invasion that the mods have expanded upon are all in the FAQ. And considering we have mods who specifically reference the FAQ for their rulings, even more evidence is thrown on the pile.

As it is, I see too much evidence that what Max wrote is the rules and too little to support your (unsupported) opinions on the matter.

You have no logical basis for this. For one thing, what he put in the FAQ is what is put down as official rules. If you bother to pay careful attention, you'll find what the mods and admins hands out as rulings in most cases are based entirely upon what Max put in the FAQ. The whole issue of region invasion rules, for example, was covered first by Max when he said:

The basics of what we can and cannot post are covered here:

And I have seen multiple occasions when mods specifically refer to that answer. GMC, for example, has posted the first portion of that at least fours times in response to questions that I know of. Now if we have mods turning around and using that to justify their rulings, it kinda makes sense to assume that's a lot more than just "his opinions."

Oh, and the following is really important:

If you had read that portion, where Max states outright that he's making the rules, you wouldn't have wasted time with an arguement about it.

If the UN FAQ states "the rules," then why are they not enforced?

My response is a personal annoyance from many forums where the people come and then whine about the policies of the site owner. If you don't like them, leave. If you wish to stay, stop whining about it and annoying the rest of us. Either way, you cannot change it just because you don't like who is in charge.

You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension here. I actually like and/or completely understand the necessity of the policies of the site. What I don't like is a UN FAQ that says the UN automatically overrides your laws, when that has never been demonstrated to be the case (through the enforcement of UN directives in roleplay), and there is game mechanics evidence that one can still make laws that contravene the UN resolutions.

Actually, it has to do with logic and paying attention to mod rulings. The rules about how the UN works, the rules about what you can and cannot post, and the basics of region invasion that the mods have expanded upon are all in the FAQ. And considering we have mods who specifically reference the FAQ for their rulings, even more evidence is thrown on the pile.

So because the other parts of the FAQ are enforced rules, we can conclude what? That the other parts of the FAQ are enforced rules, obviously. And that's really all we can conclude.

Your argument is similar to a person saying that because 97% of a book has been demonstrated true, the other 3% can be concluded to be logically necessarily true.

If the UN FAQ states "the rules," then why are they not enforced?

They are. You haven't bothered to read it and realize exactly what is included in the FAQ these days. I must conclude that from your asking why the rules are not enforced.

You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension here. I actually like and/or completely understand the necessity of the policies of the site. What I don't like is a UN FAQ that says the UN automatically overrides your laws, when that has never been demonstrated to be the case (through the enforcement of UN directives in roleplay), and there is game mechanics evidence that one can still make laws that contravene the UN resolutions.

That has already been explained on here, and I know you were posting around the time it was explained. Ignorance is no excuse.

1) Mods don't deal with roleplay unless it is something along the DA-level of obscenity, though they are getting harsher these days. The mods have outright stated such so many times its ridiculous for you to even bring that arguement up.

2) Also stated is that the daily issues won't be changed due to how much of an effort it would take. Check the Technical Forum more often.

3) As explained to me when I asked about it: The UN Gnomes automatically change your laws back when you change them to contradict the UN.

4) We've had a mod directly say the UN overrides your laws. Look around at Hack's posts on here to find it.

So because the other parts of the FAQ are enforced rules, we can conclude what? That the other parts of the FAQ are enforced rules, obviously. And that's really all we can conclude.

Thanks for admitting defeat. Your original arguement is that the FAQ is just Max's opinions. Considering that he posted rules that are enforced on the site and you have acknowledged that, I see no reason you should even continue.

Your argument is similar to a person saying that because 97% of a book has been demonstrated true, the other 3% can be concluded to be logically necessarily true.

Not even close. My arguement is that the FAQ is a lot more than just Max's opinions, which you have admitted. Now all you are doing is throwing words I did not say into my mouth in what I must assume is a desperate bid to try to salvage an arguement.

My point has been proven and admitted by the other side, so there is no reason to continue this. How about we move back to the topic?

DemonLordEnigma, you've completely blown Texan Hotrodders' first post about the FAQ out of proportion. I did not see anything to argue about with that one and then to continue debating it....sheesh.

Now back to the topic...
Okay, when I said that I may not be talking about the Nation States U.N., I meant the NS UN outlined by the FAQ. I am proposing a WHAT IF scenario. WHAT IF we actually had power to change the mechanics of the NS U.N. Would you support what I suggested? WHAT IF we could actually change the real U.N. to be stronger? I am not suggesting that we petition Mr. Barry or anyone else, for that matter, to do anything.

The states do have some sovereignty in the U.S. If we were to implement a system similar in the U.N., the nations would have to agree what sovereignty they keep. But they need stop arguing for complete sovereignty--that defeats the whole purpose of the U.N.

DemonLordEnigma, you've completely blown Texan Hotrodders' first post about the FAQ out of proportion. I did not see anything to argue about with that one and then to continue debating it....sheesh.

Now back to the topic...
Okay, when I said that I may not be talking about the Nation States U.N., I meant the NS UN outlined by the FAQ. I am proposing a WHAT IF scenario. WHAT IF we actually had power to change the mechanics of the NS U.N. Would you support what I suggested? WHAT IF we could actually change the real U.N. to be stronger? I am not suggesting that we petition Mr. Barry or anyone else, for that matter, to do anything.

The states do have some sovereignty in the U.S. If we were to implement a system similar in the U.N., the nations would have to agree what sovereignty they keep. But they need stop arguing for complete sovereignty--that defeats the whole purpose of the U.N.

No one I have seen actually argues complete sovereignty. Only that some resolutions attack sovereingty too much and should be stopped on that basis.

They are. You haven't bothered to read it and realize exactly what is included in the FAQ these days. I must conclude that from your asking why the rules are not enforced.

Then you spell it out for me. Quote from the FAQ. I must be stupid, because I've never noticed any enforcement of the below quote in terms of roleplay or issues (yes I'm aware of the technical reasons for the issues bit):

(You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

And no, Hack roleplaying the gnomes is not the kind of enforcement I'm talking about. If Hack (or another Mod, Hack is just an example) were to edit posts that roleplay non-compliance, that would be "enforcement," at least in my opinion.

Perhaps the problem here is that we have two different definitions of "enforcement". You are saying that the Gnomes, a roleplay device, are the enforcement?

That has already been explained on here, and I know you were posting around the time it was explained. Ignorance is no excuse.

1) Mods don't deal with roleplay unless it is something along the DA-level of obscenity, though they are getting harsher these days. The mods have outright stated such so many times its ridiculous for you to even bring that arguement up.

I'm aware that the Mods don't police roleplay extensively. Part of my point was that they don't do so, and that such is a lack of enforcement of the below portion of the FAQ (at least in terms of UN roleplay).

(You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

2) Also stated is that the daily issues won't be changed due to how much of an effort it would take. Check the Technical Forum more often.

*sigh* The above does not change my point that the issues allow for the contravention of UN resolutions. It only offers an explanation for why that is the case.

3) As explained to me when I asked about it: The UN Gnomes automatically change your laws back when you change them to contradict the UN.

Ah. So somebody out-godmodes the godmoders?

4) We've had a mod directly say the UN overrides your laws. Look around at Hack's posts on here to find it.

If a Mod says it, it must be true, eh? I like and respect Hack, but I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.

Thanks for admitting defeat. Your original arguement is that the FAQ is just Max's opinions. Considering that he posted rules that are enforced on the site and you have acknowledged that, I see no reason you should even continue.

Clarification: The portion of the UN FAQ below is just Max's opinion.

(You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Perhaps this will serve to focus the discussion on what I meant it to be. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

Not even close. My arguement is that the FAQ is a lot more than just Max's opinions, which you have admitted. Now all you are doing is throwing words I did not say into my mouth in what I must assume is a desperate bid to try to salvage an arguement.

See above, and attacking my motivation is a bit low, especially considering it is mere speculation on your part. Given your focus on logical forms rather than emotional/intuitive forms, I'm a bit surprised that you would make such an assumption.

My point has been proven and admitted by the other side, so there is no reason to continue this. How about we move back to the topic?

Seeing as you misunderstood the actual point because of my failure to clarify (for which you have my apologies), maybe we could stay on this topic and be a bit more polite, hmmm?

So, despite the FAQ (and the UN resolution requiring member nations to obey UN resolutions), nothing is a rule if it is possible for you to break it and get away with it?

I fail to understand how any of this makes sense.

I also do not see how denying that UN member nations are subject to the jurisdiction of the UN and must comply with UN resolutions is an argument for national sovereignty.

One can argue that the UN ought to be more sensitive to national sovereignty and that certain UN resolutions or proposals violate the principle of national sovereignty. One can argue lots of things, but disputing the rules of the UN and NS seems pointless.

I would ask why those who trumpted the cause of national sovereignty think national sovereignty is a good in and of itself. I am honestly curious.

On the topic of resolution enforcement, I was told a while ago that although you can RP not obeying resolutions, it is generally considered to be godmodding. Of course, I'm hardly an expert on RP, but that's what I was told about 9 months ago.

So, despite the FAQ (and the UN resolution requiring member nations to obey UN resolutions), nothing is a rule if it is possible for you to break it and get away with it?

Hmmm. Good point. Perhaps to clarify this as well...

"There's no point in saying its a rule if it is not enforced."

People get away with breaking even the enforced rules at times, so of course one can't say that it being a rule is dependent on it being impossible to break. I probably should have stated that part of my position better as well.

I fail to understand how any of this makes sense.

I'm beginning to wonder myself.

I also do not see how denying that UN member nations are subject to the jurisdiction of the UN and must comply with UN resolutions is an argument for national sovereignty.

It is not an argument to promote national sovereignty, it was an attempt to demonstrate that sovereignty does indeed exist within the UN.

One can argue that the UN ought to be more sensitive to national sovereignty and that certain UN resolutions or proposals violate the principle of national sovereignty. One can argue lots of things, but disputing the rules of the UN and NS seems pointless.

At the very least, this thread should probably be split and moved to Technical.

I would ask why those who trumpted the cause of national sovereignty think national sovereignty is a good in and of itself. I am honestly curious.

The right of a nation to determine its own policies is a valid and significant form of freedom. That's my personal IC take on it.

Okay, maybe we should back up a little bit here. The purpose of this thread was to discuss possibilities of improving the U.N., uniting nations more than they already are in the U.N., and disucussing reasons as to why resolutions are passed that only ask for OPTIONAL enforcement.

All references to Nation States, the Nation States FAQ, and the debate between the enforcement of that FAQ were completely uncalled for!

I have never known such an Internet community to be so hateful, mean, and bullyish to each other! IF THE MODERATORS THINK THAT THIS THREAD IS IN THE WRONG SPOT, THEN THEY WILL MOVE IT! THEY will move it! Not you! Not the user Joe Schmoe that is playing the NationStates game and really shouldn't have this burning, itching desire to tell everyone what to do!

Now, if anyone wishes to telegram me on the issues this thread was SUPPOSED to be discussing, feel free too. If anyone wishes to carry on the discussions this thread was SUPPOSED to be discussing, feel free to carry on with it. Otherwise, take your business elsewhere! (Yes, I'm telling you what to do, hahaha!)

Please don't yell. It makes my nuclear trigger finger itchy.

DemonLordEnigma, you've completely blown Texan Hotrodders' first post about the FAQ out of proportion. I did not see anything to argue about with that one and then to continue debating it....sheesh.

Actually, no I haven't. Considering the FAQ is pretty much the basis of how the site is run, telling someone they can ignore it is either foolish, not seeing the truth of the matter, or outright trying to cause trouble. Friend or not, I cannot allow it to sit unchallenged. Especially from someone respected.

Then you spell it out for me. Quote from the FAQ. I must be stupid, because I've never noticed any enforcement of the below quote in terms of roleplay or issues (yes I'm aware of the technical reasons for the issues bit):

Actually, you might want to check out this quote:

The first is not to have read the full rules (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?topic=282176) before submitting a proposal.

Make it a point to click the link. You'll find a surprise. Those are the main ones enforced.

And no, Hack roleplaying the gnomes is not the kind of enforcement I'm talking about. If Hack (or another Mod, Hack is just an example) were to edit posts that roleplay non-compliance, that would be "enforcement," at least in my opinion.

If the mods had the manpower for it, you would have a point. But they don't. In order for that to happen, we would need at least three times the mods we have now. As it is, what few mods we have are mostly overworked and dealing with a variety of issues across a spectrum.

As it is, that is not the only case of people breaking rules. I've seen quite a few roleplaying posts that violate far more rules than that. As it is, the mods can only police what they are aware of, and that's a small percentage of violations that happen in roleplay topics.

Perhaps the problem here is that we have two different definitions of "enforcement". You are saying that the Gnomes, a roleplay device, are the enforcement?

At this point in time, that is the only enforcement the mods have the resources for of the portion you quoted.

I'm aware that the Mods don't police roleplay extensively. Part of my point was that they don't do so, and that such is a lack of enforcement of the below portion of the FAQ (at least in terms of UN roleplay).

The mods also have a hard time enforcing rules about obscenity, threatening, malicious, defamatory, and spam in the terms of roleplay.

*sigh* The above does not change my point that the issues allow for the contravention of UN resolutions. It only offers an explanation for why that is the case.

You have the resources to rewrite the code to fix the problem? If so, do so and send it to the admins. At this point in time, they don't have the resources.

Ah. So somebody out-godmodes the godmoders?

Part of the privilages of his positions. On some other sites, he'd be allowed to force you to openly worship him and ban you at will.

If a Mod says it, it must be true, eh? I like and respect Hack, but I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.

Unless we have something that contradicts what he has said, his ruling is law. That is part of the power that comes with being a mod.

Clarification: The portion of the UN FAQ below is just Max's opinion.

I'll quote the one that deals with this:

So, despite the FAQ (and the UN resolution requiring member nations to obey UN resolutions), nothing is a rule if it is possible for you to break it and get away with it?

Also, another problem you have not addressed: Proposals that allow nations to ignore resolutions are illegal under UN rules and always deleted by the mods. In fact, that is stated here:

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.

Now, one must wonder where they get the basis for that rule. Wait, what does it state in the FAQ?

(You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Looks to me like it's more than just an opinion.

Perhaps this will serve to focus the discussion on what I meant it to be. My apologies for the lack of clarity.

NP. I had honestly taken it the wrong way. But, in the end I don't think it will make a difference in this discussion.

See above, and attacking my motivation is a bit low, especially considering it is mere speculation on your part. Given your focus on logical forms rather than emotional/intuitive forms, I'm a bit surprised that you would make such an assumption.

The assumption is based on the lack of clarity at the time, my viewing as have ceded the point, and having experienced people try it before. I base on both logic and experience, and I've seen it happen enough times with respected members of forums to not assume you or anyone else above it.

Seeing as you misunderstood the actual point because of my failure to clarify (for which you have my apologies), maybe we could stay on this topic and be a bit more polite, hmmm?

Don't apologize. Admitting the problem exists is apology enough by my standards. I'm not going to hold you to standards I do not hold myself to. Oh, and that was polite. Impolite is when I start throwing in cusswords, questioning your intelligence, and insinuating bad things about you in multiple ways underscored with extreme levels of irony and satire. Basically, Jane Austen, only darker and more insulting.

The reason I am so hard on this one is the fact you are a respected member. If you were some newbie, I'd just laugh at you, point out the FAQ, make a mild arguement that makes you look foolish, and move on. But you're not, which means that in this case a longer arguement is called for. You can say it's a sign of respect when I'm willing to constantly pull up evidence and search for more on the point.

Okay, maybe we should back up a little bit here. The purpose of this thread was to discuss possibilities of improving the U.N., uniting nations more than they already are in the U.N., and disucussing reasons as to why resolutions are passed that only ask for OPTIONAL enforcement.

They don't ask for optional enforcement. Instead, they enforce your right to decide on the issue. What that basically means is that they do nothing but affect you anyway. The enforcement in that case is enforcing that you have the right to choose in the matter.

All references to Nation States, the Nation States FAQ, and the debate between the enforcement of that FAQ were completely uncalled for!

I corrected the use of size and bolding in this.

This is an issue which involves the FAQ directly. So, in this case it is called for. If the FAQ can be violated on the issue, then that changes everything most of us have come to accept. If it cannot be violated, then how the issues you brought up are dealt with by the FAQ are relevant to the game. It's basically the center of the arguement.

I have never known such an Internet community to be so hateful, mean, and bullyish to each other! IF THE MODERATORS THINK THAT THIS THREAD IS IN THE WRONG SPOT, THEN THEY WILL MOVE IT! THEY will move it! Not you! Not the user Joe Schmoe that is playing the NationStates game and really shouldn't have this burning, itching desire to tell everyone what to do!

Once again, corrected size and bolding.

If you think we have been bullying each other, you haven't been on here long. This is about standard for arguements when you get those of us unwilling to play the diplomat on here. I'm here to help influence the future of the UN and keep it as beneficial to myself. No one said I had to be nice in the process.

This thread doesn't need moved. Just dealt with and moved on from. I can't think of anyone who said it needed moved, but I have been ignoring some posts.

Now, if anyone wishes to telegram me on the issues this thread was SUPPOSED to be discussing, feel free too. If anyone wishes to carry on the discussions this thread was SUPPOSED to be discussing, feel free to carry on with it. Otherwise, take your business elsewhere! (Yes, I'm telling you what to do, hahaha!)

We're discussing issues related to the issue at hand. In this case, the purpose of the UN, what the FAQ has to say, and whether the FAQ is to be relied on or looked at as a guide you can ignore.

Actually, no I haven't. Considering the FAQ is pretty much the basis of how the site is run, telling someone they can ignore it is either foolish, not seeing the truth of the matter, or outright trying to cause trouble. Friend or not, I cannot allow it to sit unchallenged. Especially from someone respected.

It's merely a statement of fact. Much in the same way that I could run someone over with a car, you could ignore the FAQ. Now that's not the whole story, of course. It's not socially acceptable (nor ethical IMO) to do either of those things. The difference between the part of the FAQ we are referencing and the other parts of the FAQ is that the part of the FAQ we are referencing is not enforced in the same way other things are enforced. And what you define as enforcement I think of as simple godmoding. When I think of enforcement, I think about forumbans and warnings, deletions and IP bans. I would have never considered godmoding as form of enforcement, even if a Mod or Admin does it. I think gomoding is silly in an RP context, regardless of who does it. Apparently, that's just me.

Make it a point to click the link. You'll find a surprise. Those are the main ones enforced.

Believe it or not, I am familiar with those. The only one I got warned for was "mentioning the forums in a proposal" which must have been added to the rules page after I originally read it. However, I should have double-checked the page before submitting the proposal. I deserved the warning.

If the mods had the manpower for it, you would have a point. But they don't. In order for that to happen, we would need at least three times the mods we have now. As it is, what few mods we have are mostly overworked and dealing with a variety of issues across a spectrum. As it is, that is not the only case of people breaking rules. I've seen quite a few roleplaying posts that violate far more rules than that. As it is, the mods can only police what they are aware of, and that's a small percentage of violations that happen in roleplay topics. At this point in time, that is the only enforcement the mods have the resources for of the portion you quoted. The mods also have a hard time enforcing rules about obscenity, threatening, malicious, defamatory, and spam in the terms of roleplay. You have the resources to rewrite the code to fix the problem? If so, do so and send it to the admins. At this point in time, they don't have the resources.

*sigh* You need to back the wagon up, partner. When I say "This is the case" I am merely stating a fact. I am not complaining that it isn't enforced with IP bans and deletions. I understand quite well that the Mods have a great deal of work to do and can't necessarily extend their resources into policing roleplay of this nature.

What I do find questionable is that the FAQ would indicate that it is indeed enforced, as are things like "posting spam and defamatory speech" with deletions and DOS orders and the like. It's the disjunct between the fact of the matter and what the FAQ indicates that bothers me.

Part of the privilages of his positions. On some other sites, he'd be allowed to force you to openly worship him and ban you at will. Unless we have something that contradicts what he has said, his ruling is law. That is part of the power that comes with being a mod.

Come now, you have to know that's a "might makes right" fallacy. If Max rules that simple godmoding is an acceptable form of enforcement when a Mod does it, then I'll concede that such is the rule. Until then, I'm certainly not going to condone it, as much of a clever and amusing part of roleplay as it might be.

Also, another problem you have not addressed: Proposals that allow nations to ignore resolutions are illegal under UN rules and always deleted by the mods. Now, one must wonder where they get the basis for that rule. Wait, what does it state in the FAQ?

Good, now we're actually on topic. So there is some enforcement in the proposal queue, which means that it is more than just an opinion. Point conceded. We are still left with the fact that there are two other methods of violating that part of the FAQ that are unenforced (by similar measures). Issues and roleplay. There are good reasons for that, but it is indeed the case. My point was that such is the case and the FAQ does not reflect it, not that it is wrong in being the case or that someone should start enforcing it because I said so.

Basically, why would it not be appropriate to rewrite the UN FAQ to reflect that while proposals that try to allow non-compliance will be deleted, daily issues and roleplay can be used to contravene UN policies, but that roleplaying such violates RP etiquette? In my opinion, a FAQ should describe what the current state of affairs is in terms of policy, not indicate what the policy would ideally be if the resources were available. The current portion of the FAQ that we have been quoting simply does not do that, which is what I find problematic.

Come now, you have to know that's a "might makes right" fallacy. If Max rules that simple godmoding is an acceptable form of enforcement when a Mod does it, then I'll concede that such is the rule. Until then, I'm certainly not going to condone it, as much of a clever and amusing part of roleplay as it might be.

Until we have a ruling to the contrary or something to indicate it is wrong, it isn't. It's a bit of an arguemental fallacy, but it's also the reality of the position. Admins are even worse on most sites, being effectively immune to the rules that mods have to follow. This is one of the few sites where the owner isn't known as one of the admins and doesn't use his position as he wishes. Power trips on the internet are par for the course.

Good, now we're actually on topic. So there is some enforcement in the proposal queue, which means that it is more than just an opinion. Point conceded. We are still left with the fact that there are two other methods of violating that part of the FAQ that are unenforced (by similar measures). Issues and roleplay. There are good reasons for that, but it is indeed the case. My point was that such is the case and the FAQ does not reflect it, not that it is wrong in being the case or that someone should start enforcing it because I said so.

Basically, why would it not be appropriate to rewrite the UN FAQ to reflect that while proposals that try to allow non-compliance will be deleted, daily issues and roleplay can be used to contravene UN policies, but that roleplaying such violates RP etiquette? In my opinion, a FAQ should describe what the current state of affairs is in terms of policy, not indicate what the policy would ideally be if the resources were available. The current portion of the FAQ that we have been quoting simply does not do that, which is what I find problematic.

It is problematic, but don't expect this to change. NS is no longer Max's baby. It's more of a testing ground for NS 2 at this point. But even back when it was Max's baby, the FAQ was unlikely to be altered. Hell, the majority of it is the same as it was back in early 2003.

OK, I think the argument over to what degree UN resolutions are enforced has gone far enough, because the important point is that one is obligated to comply with UN resolutions. I will explain.

I lack detailed experience and knowledge on the role of UN resolutions in game mechanics and/or how UN resolutions are enforced, but we all agree the enforcement is less than complete. In fact, it appears game mechanics are sometimes contrary to UN resolutions.

Nonetheless, I believe it is also agreed that UN members should obey UN resolutions. It is a rule of the game (whether or not enforced). It is also required by UN Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States":

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Thus, for a UN nations to fail to comply with UN resolutions in RP is godmoding. Such godmoding is unacceptable in the NS community, whether or not it is prohibited or punished by game mechanics or mods. Does anyone disagree with those two statements? [Game issues are a separate case.]

Tihland, I understand your frustration, but this discussion about the role of the UN in game mechanics is relevant to the issues you raised. First, much of what you propose may or may not be ideal, but is contrary to game mechanics. Second, the degree to which national sovereignty survives membership in the UN is both an issue of gameplay and of ideals.

DLE and others that simply say there is no national sovereignty after you join the UN are only correct in the sense that, as a matter of jurisdiction and gameplay, member nations are subject to international law. Proponents of national sovereignty are only correct to the degree that the principal of national sovereignty should be restrain the creation of international law. It is entirely proper to have a degree of sovereignty but be subject to a higher authority. Native American tribal governments are an example. So are US states.

As far as I'm concerned, it is made clear that the UN is double edged sword within the FAQ section.

We all knew the score when we decided to join the UN. That is, by agreeing to join the UN, we are knowingly giving up a degree of our national sovereignty. That is one of the disadvantages of being part of the organisation. If you don't like that, resign from the UN.

The advantages are that we do, all of us, get to vote on these things depending on whether we agree or not with them. We can all, also, put forward proposals that we would like to see become resolutions. To this end, we can mould the world in our vision, if others agree with our ideas.

If not, then either the proposal, resolution, is at fault, or the other UN members damn stupid.

It's merely a statement of fact.

I completely agree with you, HR. :)



And what you define as enforcement I think of as simple godmoding. When I think of enforcement, I think about forumbans and warnings, deletions and IP bans. I would have never considered godmoding as form of enforcement, even if a Mod or Admin does it. I think gomoding is silly in an RP context, regardless of who does it. Apparently, that's just me.

But ...
But ...
But ...

I'm the leader of hundreds of nations, all MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU!
"You will respect my authority!"
Submit to my superior armies, from light years away. We are so ...

blah

It isn't just you. A number of other players agree with you. Just because we aren't posting once every hour attempting to flame a newbie with a "Looks like another player hasn't read the FAQ" doesn't mean we agree with those statements. In fact, I don't. I consider those posts to be misleading.

Notice how the players that do that rarely if ever take a different approach and In Character explain the logic behind complying with UN resolutions? It can be done.

While the driving force behind universal compliance is based on game code, there is a pretty damn simple and logical reason justifying the need for high compliance (though not 100% compliance) with UN resolutions. It has been presented before ... perhaps even in your National Sovereignty threads (which I considered really interesting discussions).

:)


Good, now we're actually on topic.


LOL!


that while proposals that try to allow non-compliance will be deleted, daily issues and roleplay can be used to contravene UN policies, but that roleplaying such violates RP etiquette? In my opinion, a FAQ should describe what the current state of affairs is in terms of policy, not indicate what the policy would ideally be if the resources were available. The current portion of the FAQ that we have been quoting simply does not do that, which is what I find problematic.

In fact, a few weeks ago I started a thread on the NS2 forum specifically about UN resolution non-compliance issues.

I'll try and dig up the link to the poll, but the majority of players actually voted that they liked the idea.

Basically there is no reason to believe that NS2 will not expand the UN. In fact, in the NS2 forum there seems to be support for the idea of having more than one international body. What is unclear is if nations will have similar tech levels or be on a single "world" ... or how this interaction works out.

Cog once talked about an idea for having nations having to spend resources to map out and establish contact with other regions. I'm really not sure how this would fit in with a UN or similar body.

But from what I've seen in the NS2 forum, is that there are two main camps for NS2 ... one is a heavy free-form roleplay based group. "I am the alien leader, fear me!" The other is from a more rigid sim based idea, "I'm sorry, but your prolife says you've got only 2 billion citizens and a stone age tech level, you can't possible teleport!"

In either case, I think the decision on how to deal with tech-levels and locations of nations is very important to what you were talking about here when you talked about godmodding earlier. One players race of supreme aliens (roleplayed) is another players godmode. In the other forums, players tend to self seggregate ... here in the UN, since a vote and endorsement is equal no matter what, it isn't surprising to find players coming into conflict over this issue.

My attention was drawn here from this thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400399) in "Moderation". Specifically, this post:
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8297316&postcount=2
HR, the thread does really include a bit of NS2 talk, but really seems to focus on UN issues. While I agree that it isn't about roleplaying, I think the larger issue is the continued insistance of a minority of UN regulars that Max's NationStates FAQ implies that nations are not free to roleplay non-compliance with respect to UN resolutions.
I haven't had time to actually read this topic, but assuming that Mikitivity's analysis is correct, then I want to remind everyone of official policy:

In-Game: All UN member nations must comply with passed UN resolutions. Statistical changes are forced upon all UN member nations. There are no exceptions. Thus, UN proposals may not have any cluases in the event of non-compliance because non-compliance is impossible.

In-Forums: Roleplay is not regulated (except to enforce the standard roleplay rules: no OOC flaming, no puppet abuse, no spam, et cetera). Any player may roleplay non-compliance with a UN resolution if they so choose. Keep in mind, however, that such roleplay has no bearing on the game mechanics or on the writing of any proposals that are to be submitted to the UN through the proposal submission screen.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

In-Game: All UN member nations must comply with passed UN resolutions. Statistical changes are forced upon all UN member nations. There are no exceptions. Thus, UN proposals may not have any cluases in the event of non-compliance because non-compliance is impossible.

In-Forums: Roleplay is not regulated (except to enforce the standard roleplay rules: no OOC flaming, no puppet abuse, no spam, et cetera). Any player may roleplay non-compliance with a UN resolution if they so choose. Keep in mind, however, that such roleplay has no bearing on the game mechanics or on the writing of any proposals that are to be submitted to the UN through the proposal submission screen.


Thanks Cog!

I think this is exactly the point a few of us have been attempting to make in a few UN forum threads.

If I may, I think your very last sentence bears a bit of emphasis in light of the fact that I've seen many proposals over the last year where a player would write a proposed resolution to sanction another player for their roleplay activities. I did so myself when Joccia was roleplaying non-compliance with a number of UN resolutions in Feb. 2004.

At the time it was a young Frisbeeteria that advised me to *not* submit my proposal which specifically promoted economic sanctions on Joccia. My roleplayed response was to then just encourage other UN members to join my government's embargo. (It was probably the main reason I stayed in the game, and I really wish the player behind Joccia would return. Arguably I've always counted Joccia as being one of the few nations I'd put in the UN Hall of Fame.)

edit:
Here is the link to the NS2 and Non-Compliance in the UN thread. Right now 3/4 of the 38 respondants seem to like the idea. Another 6 said they are taking a wait and see approach (i.e. abstaining for now).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396056

Post your opinions!

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough. My intentions for this thread were, and I do repeat:

1) Discuss possibilities of improving the U.N.
a) In other words, using the what-if scenario of "what if we could change the rules"? This really has nothing to do with the FAQ.

2) Discuss uniting nations more than they already are in the U.N.
a) In other words, stop using resolutions that have wording to "suggest" or "recommend" for something to be done.

3) Disucuss reasons as to why resolutions are passed that only ask for OPTIONAL enforcement.
a) Obviously, I need to clarify that. When a resolution simply "suggests" or "recommends" an action, it is making the enforcement of that resolution optional. That is what I meant.

Tihland, I understand your frustration, but this discussion about the role of the UN in game mechanics is relevant to the issues you raised. First, much of what you propose may or may not be ideal, but is contrary to game mechanics. Second, the degree to which national sovereignty survives membership in the UN is both an issue of gameplay and of ideals.

Yes, I forgot that some people take this game too seriously. Most of my points I intended to be in more of a role-playing context. Thank for your comments following this quote, as they are actually on topic.


DemonLordEnigma, you've completely blown Texan Hotrodders' first post about the FAQ out of proportion. I did not see anything to argue about with that one and then to continue debating it....sheesh.

Actually, no I haven't. Considering the FAQ is pretty much the basis of how the site is run, telling someone they can ignore it is either foolish, not seeing the truth of the matter, or outright trying to cause trouble. Friend or not, I cannot allow it to sit unchallenged. Especially from someone respected.


Whoever said anything about ignoring the FAQ? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

This brings me to a point. Frankly, I am finding the discussion about the FAQ utterly boring. Would you both please stop playing lawyer? If I had questions about the FAQ, I would first read it. Then I would ask those questions, if I had any, to the appropriate people--not fellow players, but moderators and even Mr. Barry himself. They are the ones that have been entrusted in keeping the laws of the game enforced. I am not here to tell them how to do their jobs. It irritates me to see other players telling the moderators how to do their jobs--it really does.

I corrected the use of size and bolding in this.
Excuse me? You "corrected" my use of size and bolding? What's that supposed to mean? That I'm not allowed to be angry and frustrated and express it as so? Who died and made you ruler of the formatting of text?! I assure you that I made no mistake in formatting the text in the way I did.

If you think we have been bullying each other, you haven't been on here long.
Look to the left of this post and see that I have been playing this game since April 2003. You have only played since October 2004. (Of course, you may have had an account before then, but who knows?) I know quite well what goes on in these forums, and it's what I call bullying. It's not just simply bullying, it's a long, drawn out, mean, most horrific way to bully. Just reread this post and look at all the bullying I've tried to defend myself from. I rarely make an appearance in the forums, but I've found that I get treated awful whenever I do. It really turns me off to the NationStates community. Actually, I have had a few good experiences--but only in telegrams, never in the forums.

This thread doesn't need moved. Just dealt with and moved on from. I can't think of anyone who said it needed moved, but I have been ignoring some posts.
You have ignored the post telling "they" (whoever "they" are) to move it.

We're discussing issues related to the issue at hand. In this case, the purpose of the UN, what the FAQ has to say, and whether the FAQ is to be relied on or looked at as a guide you can ignore.
I have not read much from you about the purpose of the UN in this thread. I've heard enough to put me to sleep about the FAQ. Whether or not the FAQ is to be relied on or looked at as a guide you can ignore is a completely ridiculous argument to have. Once again, we have moderators. They enforce the rules the way they enforce the rules. If anyone feels the rules aren't being enforced, take it up with them, or even their boss, Mr. Barry. There is nothing more to discuss about that. It is up to a person to decide if they want to follow the rules. If they do not, then they will hopefully suffer the consequences of not doing it. If they do, more power to them!


Now, can we please get back to discussing something that might actually accomplish something?

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough. My intentions for this thread were, and I do repeat:

1) Discuss possibilities of improving the U.N.
a) In other words, using the what-if scenario of "what if we could change the rules"? This really has nothing to do with the FAQ.


We can't.


2) Discuss uniting nations more than they already are in the U.N.
a) In other words, stop using resolutions that have wording to "suggest" or "recommend" for something to be done.


We can't.


3) Disucuss reasons as to why resolutions are passed that only ask for OPTIONAL enforcement.
a) Obviously, I need to clarify that. When a resolution simply "suggests" or "recommends" an action, it is making the enforcement of that resolution optional. That is what I meant.


As an attempt to do number 2, but since it hasn't worked....


Does that help :}

(I really am trying to take this seriously, but it is really not in my nature!)

(I really am trying to take this seriously, but it is really not in my nature!)

So, taking into consideration you don't take anything seriously, we should just ignore your advice and opinions.

So, taking into consideration you don't take anything seriously, we should just ignore your advice and opinions.

This is an attempt by one person to change the entire way the game works. In the face of all the moderation staff saying "no" and the FAQ which says "no" and the fact a lot of proposals to try to change the UN have been deleted and the users ejected for violating the rules that most people seem to accept as rules, I can not believe that he is still trying to change things.

It's almost certainly never going to happen in NS1 and yet people are still trying.

It's King Canute all over again.

This is an attempt by one person to change the entire way the game works. In the face of all the moderation staff saying "no" and the FAQ which says "no" and the fact a lot of proposals to try to change the UN have been deleted and the users ejected for violating the rules that most people seem to accept as rules, I can not believe that he is still trying to change things.

It's almost certainly never going to happen in NS1 and yet people are still trying.

It's King Canute all over again.

Yeah, I know that they will never change the UN based on these proposals, but putting up ideas constantly will eventually see an evolution of the game at a later date.

King Canute is a bad example. He 'attempted' to turn back the sea to prove to his sychophantic subjects, who thought he could, that he did not have that power. Canute did not believe he thought he actually had that power.

We can't.
You mean we can't discuss these things? The utter ignorance of the people in this community is astounding! This thread is for discussion purposes only as all threads are for! No one is spamming or using offensive language or breaking any FAQ rules in this thread as far as I can tell. But it is irritating me greatly that no one is discussing what I so desired to discuss with them!

This is an attempt by one person to change the entire way the game works.
Surely you aren't talking about me!
I am not trying to change the entire way the game works!
I never suggested changing the entire way the game works!
I never suggested petitioning anyone to change the entire way the game works!
I most assuredly have no desire to change the mechanics of the game!

How much more explicit do you want me to be?!

The mentioned attempt that you have accused me of was NEVER IMPLIED anywhere in this thread. This must be the 3 millionth verification to me that people here really do not think logically.

I'm glad you guys aren't real political leaders...

RAWR!!
Could you please stop yelling? Perhaps the reason people aren't taking you seriously is that you're acting so childish.

Why didn't they take me seriously when I wasn't yelling? That's my question.

You mean we can't discuss these things? The utter ignorance of the people in this community is astounding! This thread is for discussion purposes only as all threads are for! No one is spamming or using offensive language or breaking any FAQ rules in this thread as far as I can tell. But it is irritating me greatly that no one is discussing what I so desired to discuss with them!


Sorry - I meant we can't change things :}


Surely you aren't talking about me!
I am not trying to change the entire way the game works!
I never suggested changing the entire way the game works!
I never suggested petitioning anyone to change the entire way the game works!
I most assuredly have no desire to change the mechanics of the game!


(smirk) Then I apologise. Seriously - I thought you were attempting to start a revolution. If that was not your intention I am truly sorry for misreading it :}

[/QUOTE]
The mentioned attempt that you have accused me of was NEVER IMPLIED anywhere in this thread. This must be the 3 millionth verification to me that people here really do not think logically.

I'm glad you guys aren't real political leaders...[/QUOTE]

I think it was implied, but as I said, I may have misunderstood your intention. So, to stave off any further problems with me being an idiot, I do apologise!!

Yeah, I know that they will never change the UN based on these proposals, but putting up ideas constantly will eventually see an evolution of the game at a later date.

King Canute is a bad example. He 'attempted' to turn back the sea to prove to his sychophantic subjects, who thought he could, that he did not have that power. Canute did not believe he thought he actually had that power.

And I know that we don't have the power. So maybe it's a good example after all.

Why didn't they take me seriously when I wasn't yelling? That's my question.

I really mean no offence by this, but all this has been discussed and re-discussed several times before. And not just in my "lifetime" (all five months of it) but before that as well.

The UN is not going to change the way it works. And it's unlikely that a large enough group of nations can be formed to manipulate the way it works now.

My attention was drawn here from this thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400399) in "Moderation". Specifically, this post:
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8297316&postcount=2

In-Game: All UN member nations must comply with passed UN resolutions. Statistical changes are forced upon all UN member nations. There are no exceptions. Thus, UN proposals may not have any cluases in the event of non-compliance because non-compliance is impossible.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Show me an example of how these statistical changes work, or are enforced, or how a member nation can even comply with UN resolutions [other than in roleplay] because for the life of me I cannot see it from my own experience. I think you're talking BS.

Show me an example of how these statistical changes work, or are enforced, or how a member nation can even comply with UN resolutions [other than in roleplay] because for the life of me I cannot see it from my own experience. I think you're talking BS.
Well, Cogitation is a game moderator, so he'd be one of the people whose words are most likely to be true. A nation complies with UN resolutions in that the game forces a change in that nation's economy, political freedoms, personal freedoms, taxes, or one of many other things about the nation.

EDIT:
About showing how they're enforced, you'd need to see the game code for that. About seeing an example, many people will testify that their nation took a tax hike or their civil liberties went up after some resolution or other was passed.

Well, Cogitation is a game moderator, so he'd be one of the people whose words are most likely to be true. A nation complies with UN resolutions in that the game forces a change in that nation's economy, political freedoms, personal freedoms, taxes, or one of many other things about the nation.

EDIT:
About showing how they're enforced, you'd need to see the game code for that. About seeing an example, many people will testify that their nation took a tax hike or their civil liberties went up after some resolution or other was passed.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for a moderator to demonstrate these in-game changes.

Just because something goes up or down does not necessarily mean it was because of a UN resolution. It could have been the result of one of your own daily changes. How can you tell?

How can you tell?
A simple test a player could do is simply not address any issues and see if anything changes when a resolution is passed.

My civil freedoms went up after the last resolution was passed (don't ask why, I would'nt have a clue), and I know it was the UN resolution that affected it, because I have issues turned off for Crydonia, and have'nt answered one for a while.

I'd have to start again to test that one, since I've been ejected from the UN. I'll just take your word for it.

This does touch on my point about the UN, however. If the UN resolutions override 'domestic' decisions - the daily issues we choose to answer or not - and you are a UN member, you may as well turn off your 'issues', since they will be overruled and superceded by UN resolutions anyway. Gee, you don't need to play at all, you could just set up a nation and forget about it for as long as you like. What fun!

Then it shouldn't be too hard for a moderator to demonstrate these in-game changes.

Just because something goes up or down does not necessarily mean it was because of a UN resolution. It could have been the result of one of your own daily changes. How can you tell?

Cup and Fork,

You are beginning to really ask questions that are better suited for the Gameplay forum, not that we can't help you here, but to ask for a demonstration of how the game code works, is something that is beyond the game experience of most of us here. :)

NationStates starts off (by design) as a "black-box" to all players. Max and co wanted it that way. Today, they REFUSE to show the majority of players what the real impacts of the daily issues are. But over time players have created puppets and studied the impacts.

Now it may be possible to see the data that describes our countries, but that is kinda like peaking behind the curtain or looking into that black box.

However, for the UN Cogitation has become the care-taker of Enodia's old post titled, "Before you submit a proposal ...". It should be at the top of this forum. Read the first few posts, and in them you'll see Cog talk about how the various UN resolution categories impact our game stats.

Basically the Texan Hotrodders' resolution was a Mild Human Rights resolution, which means all UN members should have gotten a very slight boost in their "Civil Freedoms" category. The mods have always told us this much.

Now it might be that other things changed too. I don't know. Tax rate? Maybe? But I honestly couldn't guess what else, and really don't see a good reason for a human rights resolution to really bump up our taxes.

The reason I was talking about non-compliance with resolutions earlier, wasn't so that a player can avoid the game stats ride that UN resolutions take. We can't. When a resolution passes, in impacts all nations currently in the UN.

I was, however, focusing on roleplaying. Since all UN resolutions of the same strength and category effectively change all nations in the same way, it is how we roleplay the finer details of the resolution that aren't coded into the game stats changes that can be fun to play out.

For example, resolution #54 by Hersfold, UN Educational Committee was a strong Human Rights resolution. That meant that all UN members had their civil freedoms increased. If you read Hersfold's resolution, it sounds like our educational programs should also jump up, right? Well, they didn't in the game stats terms. Our human rights went up, but resolutions can't really impact a secondary game state like "Smartest Citizens".

In contrast to UN resolutions, daily issues can change these stats. But not all game stats really change. I once flat out asked the moderators how to change my Cheese Industry stat and was told it was pretty much determined at the start of the game and that no issue impacts it *yet*. I guess that means no chesse burgers for Miervatians! ;)

I trust Crydonia's experience. :)

TilEnca, I would like to apologize for losing my temper at you. I'm sorry. I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me.

I'm apparently just being ignored at this point. Actually, I've probably been ignored since I started this thread. (After all, everyone refuses to talk about the intended topic; even the moderators, for crying out loud!) Furthermore, I feel that every statement in every thread I've ever really said anything is ignored. Why am I even wasting my time writing this? Why am I even playing this game?

Furthermore, I feel that every statement in every thread I've ever really said anything is ignored. Why am I even wasting my time writing this? Why am I even playing this game?

You've now been replied to. ;)

If I felt the need to correct something you've said, chances are 50-50 that I would have done so already.

TilEnca, I would like to apologize for losing my temper at you. I'm sorry. I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me.


It's forgotten already.


I'm apparently just being ignored at this point. Actually, I've probably been ignored since I started this thread. (After all, everyone refuses to talk about the intended topic; even the moderators, for crying out loud!) Furthermore, I feel that every statement in every thread I've ever really said anything is ignored. Why am I even wasting my time writing this? Why am I even playing this game?

That's really two questions. It is not beyond reason you are wasting your time writing this, because - as I said - it's been discussed, rehashed and so forth so much that it's possible people are just bored with it (no offence!).

The second question - the game has a lot of facets beyond the UN. And trying to rewrite the whole UN rule book is a tad beyond most of the players anyway (again - no offence to any of the players, but it is!), but there is the entire rest of the game to deal with - UN debates, issues, roleplaying, global thermo-nuclear war.... you get the idea :}

First of all, I'm not necessarily talking about the NationStates U.N. I'm well aware of the limitations of the NationStates U.N.

Are any of you familiar with the United States of America? There are these things called states that have sovereignty over their land. However, the federal government has sovereignty over that. What I am simply suggesting is that a higher level have sovereignty over that. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with a federal government over state governments in the U.S.

Notice the equivalence there: UNITED States.....UNITED Nations....What else is there to say?


Thanks for the lesson, didn't know what United meant before...... Maybe you didnt' notice, but this is the NationsStates Forum, not another Forum....we are not sitting in New York, if you haven't noticed and NationStates doesn't necesarily parallel your understanding of international politics. Sorry.

Denusia

It's forgotten already.



That's really two questions. It is not beyond reason you are wasting your time writing this, because - as I said - it's been discussed, rehashed and so forth so much that it's possible people are just bored with it (no offence!).

The second question - the game has a lot of facets beyond the UN. And trying to rewrite the whole UN rule book is a tad beyond most of the players anyway (again - no offence to any of the players, but it is!), but there is the entire rest of the game to deal with - UN debates, issues, roleplaying, global thermo-nuclear war.... you get the idea :}

As it currently stands, the UN rule book is hardly challenging.

As it currently stands, the UN rule book is hardly challenging.

Then why do people keep submitting proposals that violate it? If it was that easy to understand then we would not get so many dumb-ass proposals, would we?

Then why do people keep submitting proposals that violate it? If it was that easy to understand then we would not get so many dumb-ass proposals, would we?
TilEnca you should've realized by now that the problem is that most people don't read the bloody rulebook before submitting proposals.

Alright then, if this has been discussed before, may I please have the links to those discussions?

Thanks for the lesson, didn't know what United meant before...... Maybe you didnt' notice, but this is the NationsStates Forum, not another Forum....we are not sitting in New York, if you haven't noticed and NationStates doesn't necesarily parallel your understanding of international politics. Sorry.

Thanks for the lesson, didn't know that no one wanted to take part in a think tank about developing an idea for a UN model that I had no intention of implementing or encouraging its implementation of.

What's that? The fifth time I've tried to tell people what the intentions of this thread were? Amazing.....Utterly Amazing.....

[...]the game has a lot of facets beyond the UN. And trying to rewrite the whole UN rule book is a tad beyond most of the players anyway (again - no offence to any of the players, but it is!)[...]

You're still trying to say I intend on changing the UN rule book, and I'm going to continue saying "No, I do not intend on changing the UN rule book or petitioning for a change to happen."

Let's make that the sixth time I've tried to explain the intentions of this thread.

Lol, I've been trying to explain what the purpose of this thread is inside this thread for 5 pages now. Let's start taking bets! How many pages do you think it'll take before the intended topic is discussed?

I say it's never going to happen! What do you say?

[...]but there is the entire rest of the game to deal with - UN debates, issues, roleplaying, global thermo-nuclear war.... you get the idea :} [...]
I've tried the UN debate before on my own proposal. That's where the majority of bullies exist in this community. I recently had a hand at roleplaying, and I must say the first experience was as if I wasn't roleplaying at all! People were yelling at me (out of character) for doing what I did in character! Then when that party stopped being a pest, the guy/gal who started the thread only talked a few more times and left me hanging there waiting for what his/her nation intended to do next. So then Tihland built a gigantic bubble around itself to try to prevent any bad things from happening to the nation. I haven't gone back to that since. (I'm not even going to mention the experiences I had when I first joined NationStates.)

I'm telling you that I have never had such a negative gaming experience in my lifetime as I have had with NationStates! This really makes me ponder the question again, "Why am I playing this game?"

TilEnca you should've realized by now that the problem is that most people don't read the bloody rulebook before submitting proposals.

(smirk) I think that would be my point :}

Then why do people keep submitting proposals that violate it? If it was that easy to understand then we would not get so many dumb-ass proposals, would we?

I don't think it is a matter of whether people understand them or not, they are pretty simple and straightforward, it is more about whether they read them or not. In which case it doesn't matter how simple or complex the rules are.

In my case, and perhaps others, 'breaking' the rules is more about drawing attention to inadequacies in game play. After all, it should not be possible to break the rules in a game like this. Breaking the rules should actually be part of the game it should be accommodated, integrated into the game.

I don't think it is a matter of whether people understand them or not, they are pretty simple and straightforward, it is more about whether they read them or not. In which case it doesn't matter how simple or complex the rules are.

In my case, and perhaps others, 'breaking' the rules is more about drawing attention to inadequacies in game play. After all, it should not be possible to break the rules in a game like this. Breaking the rules should actually be part of the game it should be accommodated, integrated into the game.

It is. You break the rules, you get punished. Like you foul someone in football, the other team gets a free-kick, or if you do a really bad foul you get sent off.

If you do a bad proposal, you get a warning. If you do a really bad proposal, you get kicked out.

It is. You break the rules, you get punished. Like you foul someone in football, the other team gets a free-kick, or if you do a really bad foul you get sent off.

If you do a bad proposal, you get a warning. If you do a really bad proposal, you get kicked out.

In which case nobody should pretend to be so concerned, upset or feel the need to complain about bad proposals being submitted.

Then why do people keep submitting proposals that violate it? If it was that easy to understand then we would not get so many dumb-ass proposals, would we?

You forget - Dumbasses have to actually read the FAQ, preferably before they put in a proposal, for the FAQ to work.

Can't help voluntary ignorance.

You forget - Dumbasses have to actually read the FAQ, preferably before they put in a proposal, for the FAQ to work.

Can't help voluntary ignorance.

Maybe other dumb-asses should read a couple of previous posts, then they would know that I had already said: "I don't think it is a matter of whether people understand them or not, they are pretty simple and straightforward, it is more about whether they read them or not."

In which case nobody should pretend to be so concerned, upset or feel the need to complain about bad proposals being submitted.

But it just fills up the proposal queue with crap, and makes it even more of a chore to review all of them to see if there are any that require supporting.

Further more - sometimes the ref's back is turned. If the mods don't spot a bad or illegal proposal, and no one brings it to their attention, then it can become a law and we are all stuck with it.

But it just fills up the proposal queue with crap, and makes it even more of a chore to review all of them to see if there are any that require supporting.

Further more - sometimes the ref's back is turned. If the mods don't spot a bad or illegal proposal, and no one brings it to their attention, then it can become a law and we are all stuck with it.

That's true if they are illegal, but if they are 'crap', then crap is subjective, there is a spectrum of crap. A crap rainbow extends from one end of the proposal list to the other, and occasionally we are showered with a golden proposal that might just be worth supporting.

As for the mod's attentiveness, sounds like a major flaw in the game to me.

Remember, there are three ways of knowing a thing. Take for instance some crap. One can be told of some crap, one can see the crap with his own eyes, and finally one can reach out and be splattered by it.

Tihland

I am sorry that you are not enjoying the game. It may well be that you should quit playing.

Yelling at us and feeling sorry for yourself are not going to help, however.

I am still relatively new to NS, but I agree that discussions (at least in the UN forums) should be more civil. There is a lot of bullying. In part, this is because members respond to those who appear unwilling to listen to reason. Still, whether viewed as simple courtesy or as diplomatic roleplay, it would be preferable if we could keep discussions in the UN respectful.

You may wish to consider, however, your own behavior as not conducive to civility. You did, in fact, start yelling early on, in the second page of this thread. When I addressed the topic (as you define it), you were patronizing. (I understand why, so I forgave you instantly). You took a similar approach early on when you lectured someone (I do not recall who) about the meaning of "united."

The fact of the matter is: As you wish to restrict the discussion, there appears to be little or interest in discussing the topics you raised.

As you point it earlier, you want to discuss three things:
1. a "what if we could change the rules" scenario
2. we should stop using resolutions that "suggest" or "recommend"
3. reason as to why resolutions are passed that "suggest" or "recommend"

I at least do not find these particularly interesting. Maybe someone else will address them. The first is purely theoretical. The second either asks us to change the behavior of others (which we cannot do) or begs the third question.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Tihland

I am sorry that you are not enjoying the game. It may well be that you should quit playing.

Yelling at us and feeling sorry for yourself are not going to help, however.

I am still relatively new to NS, but I agree that discussions (at least in the UN forums) should be more civil. There is a lot of bullying. In part, this is because members respond to those who appear unwilling to listen to reason. Still, whether viewed as simple courtesy or as diplomatic roleplay, it would be preferable if we could keep discussions in the UN respectful.[QUOTE]


Hm, a lack of interest, yelling, bullying, an unwillingness to listen to reason and a blue and white colour scheme on the NS UN flag/banner. These observations should silence those who argue that the NS UN is not like the real UN.

Hm, a lack of interest, yelling, bullying, an unwillingness to listen to reason and a blue and white colour scheme on the NS UN flag/banner. These observations should silence those who argue that the NS UN is not like the real UN.

The NSUN get's things done and can not be ignored by right-wing nations when they want to break the law :}

Hm, a lack of interest, yelling, bullying, an unwillingness to listen to reason and a blue and white colour scheme on the NS UN flag/banner. These observations should silence those who argue that the NS UN is not like the real UN.

I'm not sure I get your point (or that I want to).

The NS UN is not the real UN. Truism. So?

I was not suggesting the NS UN should be like the real UN.

I was merely suggesting the NS UN forum should have less yelling and bullying. Granted, we cannot force others to be civil (other than when they violate the rules of the NS forums). We can however police our own behavior. (I have been guilty myself of bullying and nasty remarks. It is easy to be tempted.)

We could also consider ostracizing those who are flagrantly rude.

That is all I was suggesting.

You may wish to consider, however, your own behavior as not conducive to civility. You did, in fact, start yelling early on, in the second page of this thread. When I addressed the topic (as you define it), you were patronizing. (I understand why, so I forgave you instantly). You took a similar approach early on when you lectured someone (I do not recall who) about the meaning of "united."

I began getting frustrated when people were not discussing the things I wished to discuss. You see, I have the courtesy to start a new thread when I want to discuss something that is not discussed elsewhere instead of hijacking a thread. Of course, as my first "yelling" was ignored and the discussion continued to be off topic, I "yelled" again as my frustration was compounded more before.

I have only yelled twice in this thread. It's not the most behavioral thing to do, I admit, but I did it, and I don't have any intention of deleting them at the moment.

I posted the meaning of "united" in the very first post of this thread. I intended to use it for the discussion the thread was going to be used for. I did not lecture one person on this matter. I made the definition announced so that one would not have to go to a dictionary to look it up.

In general, if anyone does not want to discuss the things I wanted to discuss in this thread, as it appears no one does, then please take your business elsewhere. Start a new thread. I would personally do it under the same circumstances. It is for the very reason that no one wishes to discuss things with me that I feel sorry for myself, and in my opinion, rightfully so. I understand if threads get off-topic eventually, but this thread got off-topic on the third post!

I'm not sure I get your point (or that I want to).

The NS UN is not the real UN. Truism. So?

I was not suggesting the NS UN should be like the real UN.

I was merely suggesting the NS UN forum should have less yelling and bullying. Granted, we cannot force others to be civil (other than when they violate the rules of the NS forums). We can however police our own behavior. (I have been guilty myself of bullying and nasty remarks. It is easy to be tempted.)

We could also consider ostracizing those who are flagrantly rude.

That is all I was suggesting.

Er, chill out. You seem to be taking things far too seriously. :cool:

Hmmmm. I guess that's it. Have fun everyone! I believe I shall return to the shadows from whence I came. Until my next rare appearance, enjoy yourselves! It's only a game, after all.