NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a quiz to test people's knowledge. The results (i.e. the names) are public ... so bare that in mind before making a wild guess.

Here is a list of possible answers:
1) Between 0 and 5 committees,
2) Between 6 and 10 committees,
3) Between 11 and 15 committees,
4) Between 16 and 20 committees,
5) Between 21 and 25 committees,
6) Between 26 and 30 committees,
7) Between 31 and 40 committees,
8) 41 or more.

NOTE: I will not answer this for a few days. ;)

IRCO, UCPL, UNSC, UNEC, WWP, IMSB, TPP, TEWC, UNWODC, ULC, and ULCEC.

Some of the committees mentioned, such as UNAIDS, are real-world organizations that were never established by the NSUN. The great irony comes in the fact UNAIDS was given expanded powers despite the fact it doesn't technically exist. The last two were both established by the same resolution. I can even point out which resolution established each group. And, yes, they are in the order they were established in.

Edit: The answer is variable. Why? Because the Support Hemp Production resolution also established committees, except it established one in every nation that decided to use it. The answer can be anywhere from 11 to 38,000 committees.

UNODC and UNAIDS are both first mentioned in the Needle Sharing Prevention resolution. However, it is referencing documents filed by those groups and not establishing protocol that brings them into NS existance, meaning it is referencing real-world organizations. The IRCO resolution, upon which some may argue these are based, says nothing that establishes them. If they are RP groups, then in any case they are not official UN groups. As such, they cannot be included in any count of official UN organizations and committees.

Mik, there is such a thing as making a point and such a thing as being an ass about a subject. I seriously hope this is not the latter.

While there certainly is a point to be made, I also think people need to think about how many committees there really are.

The reason I put ranges, is because as you found out in the Universal Library Coalition, there sometimes are *multiple* committees in a resolution.


Edit: Wait, that's wrong. The answer is variable. Why? Because the Support Hemp Production resolution also established committees, except it established one in every nation that decided to use it. The answer can be anywhere from 11 to 38,000 committees.

Re-read the Hemp support. Those are *national* committees, not UN committees. I'm not asking how many committees were created, but how many NS UN committees.

But as you poined out with the UNAIDS, it is real. But here is a something to think about ... the International Red Cross is also real. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland (in fact, I'll be visiting it for fun in late May). :) In any event, many players have made reference to the Red Cross or Red Crecent in their roleplays. Other players have created their own international humanitarian aid organizations. Though a resolution created it, and the UNAIDS was actually just making a reference to a real world organization (twice ... Needle Sharing Prevention made references to UNAIDS and UNODC as well), the moderates had the "no real world" references rule in full force *before* Pilot's NS HIV AIDS Act hit the UN. The mods did not catch the reference, so I've always assumed that when Pilot said:

"i. Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS), allocated it sufficient and adequate budget to hire staff and management, purchase top-grade equipment and finace itnernational operations."

That he very purposefully was trying to plug a hole in my resolution by making UNAIDS a NS created organization as well. He was referencing the earlier reference, but just making sure it was funded and staffed.

One thing about Pilot was that he actually did one of the best jobs in feeling out what others were thinking, as his polls were very accurate, and with a small margin of error.

Anyways, I'd score UNAIDS as a player created committee in much the same way that the IRCO is, especially in light of the fact that the purpose of the NS HIV AIDS Act was really to increase the international and domestic awareness of HIV AIDS, and Pilot felt having a make-believe organization charged to do this day and night was a good way to do it. (I agree with him too.)

Of course, UNAIDS isn't exactly a roleplaying based organization, but there is no reason that people can't start something *if* they wanted.

I'm not confirming or denying the others ... I'll post my list later.

While there certainly is a point to be made, I also think people need to think about how many committees there really are.

I deleted that particular quote when I looked into the other poll. It became irrelevant and unneeded.

The reason I put ranges, is because as you found out in the Universal Library Coalition, there sometimes are *multiple* committees in a resolution.

Yes. Which is annoying.

Re-read the Hemp support. Those are *national* committees, not UN committees. I'm not asking how many committees were created, but how many NS UN committees.

That's one that can be argued either way. Some would classify them as UN committees due to the fact they are established by UN law, while others would classify them as local committees due to where they operate. It's a question of which set of semantics a person wants to go for.

But as you poined out with the UNAIDS, it is real. But here is a something to think about ... the International Red Cross is also real. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland (in fact, I'll be visiting it for fun in late May). :) In any event, many players have made reference to the Red Cross or Red Crecent in their roleplays. Other players have created their own international humanitarian aid organizations. Though a resolution created it, and the UNAIDS was actually just making a reference to a real world organization (twice ... Needle Sharing Prevention made references to UNAIDS and UNODC as well), the moderates had the "no real world" references rule in full force *before* Pilot's NS HIV AIDS Act hit the UN. The mods did not catch the reference, so I've always assumed that when Pilot said:

"i. Expansion of the United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS), allocated it sufficient and adequate budget to hire staff and management, purchase top-grade equipment and finace itnernational operations."

That he very purposefully was trying to plug a hole in my resolution by making UNAIDS a NS created organization as well. He was referencing the earlier reference, but just making sure it was funded and staffed.

Actually, that is not the case. At the time, those of us involved were more worried about trying to get a viable resolution through the door that would pass. It's one of the rare ones that passed on the first try (IIRC). The fact it is not a NSUN-established group was not caught at the time. The resolution itself is a conglomeration of ideas, with Pilot having come up with the base and having done most of the work.

The one thing that IRCO has going for it is the fact that it has a shiny resolution saying it exists. It is inarguably a UN committee.

One thing about Pilot was that he actually did one of the best jobs in feeling out what others were thinking, as his polls were very accurate, and with a small margin of error.

Ya know, I've always wondered what happened to him. I have always thought it was my joking that drove him away.

Anyways, I'd score UNAIDS as a player created committee in much the same way that the IRCO is, especially in light of the fact that the purpose of the NS HIV AIDS Act was really to increase the international and domestic awareness of HIV AIDS, and Pilot felt having a make-believe organization charged to do this day and night was a good way to do it. (I agree with him too.)

Of course, UNAIDS isn't exactly a roleplaying based organization, but there is no reason that people can't start something *if* they wanted.

I have to admit, his use of former resolutions was one of his more brilliant ideas. And he had to do all of it despite the fierce opposition and lack of help he had, even with those involved in helping revise it.

I'm not confirming or denying the others ... I'll post my list later.

Neither am I. Some of them surprised me, though.

Yes. Which is annoying.

It depends for me. I think the establishment of the UNSC and then the fact that the resolution had a Board of Directors referenced is OK.

Hersfold and I had at one time written a proposal to further define the way the UNEC would be funded and organized, but Stephistan weighed down on Hersfold. A number of us from the UN had to argue hard to get the warning removed for submitting an "Amendment".

Here is the draft I've kept around (which may be different than the final version Hersfold submitted):

Defining the UNEC

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Hersfold

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

Aware of the passage of its resolution, United Nations Education Committee, adopted April 9, 2004,

1. Defines the roll of the UNEC to include:
a) Providing educational grants to UN member states that request financial help for their education programs,
b) Providing supplies directly to public and/or private education institutions that have applied for supply grants to the UNEC,
c) Evaluating the level of need of all applicants for UNEC assistance, and
d) Monitoring the implementation of its grants and report its findings to this assembly when appropriate;

2. Establishes a United Nations Educational Trust Fund, which will be managed by the UNEC and funded through donations by international, national, and non-governmental sources;

3. Further Defines the voting membership of the UNEC to include:
a) any UN member state which contributes to the United Nations Education Trust Fund, and
b) a number of UN member states, not to exceed 100 seats, as elected by the UN General Assembly to server one-year terms;

4. Recommends two advisory panels to the UNEC, composed of:
a) up to two teachers from each UN member state, and
b) up to two students from each UN member state;

5. Instructs the voting membership of the UNEC to take into consideration all of the recommendations provided by the UNEC advisory panel;

6. Authorizes the UNEC to base the decisions concerning the awarding and continuation of the United Nations Education Trust Fund grants on both the recommendation of the UNEC advisory panel as well as on information collected on the current status of overall quality of the programs that apply for financial aid;

7. Suggests that the evaluation of the current status of the overall quality of educational programs includes a budget analysis of the educational program, student retention, school curriculum and program of study, educational goals of the society in question, and feedback from the students / teachers / administration and representatives of the country applying for the grant;

8. Affirms that the grants provided by the UNEC will only be used for educational purposes, such that if the UNEC has reason to believe the funds or supplies it provides are being used for non-educational programs, the UNEC may vote to suspend the funds upon an investigation, as provided by its monitoring program described above;

9. Acknowledges the inherent right of societies to determine what is best for their children, by taking into consideration the cultural and social needs of the member states and schools that apply to the UNEC;

10. Reaffirms that the financial resources provided by the UNEC should be given out on a need basis, with the nations most in need of assistance given a priority in the UNEC decision making process; and

11. Expresses its hope that in time that nations will be able to supplement the aid provided by the UNEC and that the programs and institutions that apply for UNEC aid may become self-succient.


Hersfold and I have a great deal of fun writting this. (Please note we had the name of our own committee wrong ... this file is from mid-2004.) Basically what we did here was organize the committee and create a trust fund. So we expanded the role of an existing committee and added 1 new part.

So I can understand a resolution author wanting to do managerial work like this ... been there done that. The feeders and plenty of regions write all sorts of local rules and constitutions as well. That *is* a fun part of the game.

But here is the great thing about the proposal Hersfold and I wrote ... there is no reason that we can't just pretend that some of this ideas exist. In fact, somebody else could unpretend if they wanted.

I'm neither going to guess nor review all the resolutions with a notepad handy.

Is the point to ask how many are (or have been) actually RP'ed?

One answer was left off the poll - "Too Damn Many".

I'm neither going to guess nor review all the resolutions with a notepad handy.

Is the point to ask how many are (or have been) actually RP'ed?

Only a few of the UN resolutions have been roleplayed. Here is the list I've seen come up, but bear in mind that I rarely visit International Incidents:

- #6 End Slavery (HR)
- #16 Elimination of Bio Weapons (GD)
- #29 The IRCO (HR)
- #31 The Wolfish Convention on POW (HR)
- #33 No Embargoes on Medicine (HR)
- #40 Banning the Use of Landmines (GD)
- #42 Increased Access to Medicine (HR)
- #43 Legalise Euthanasia (HR)
- #44 Fair Treament of Mentally-Ill (HR)
- #46 Legalize Prostitution (HR)
- #50 UN Sapce Consortium (FT)
- #57 Reduce Black Market Arms Sales (IS)
- #65 Refugee Protection Act (SJ)
- #68 Ban Trafficking in Persons (HR)
- #70 Banning Whaling (EN)
- #74 The Law of the Sea (FT)
- #83 The Eon Convention on Genocide (HR)
- #92 Humanitarian Intervention (HR)

There have been some others that have been RPed, but I've seen most of these brought up many times.

HR, GD, FT, SJ, EN...

I'm drawing blanks.

Human Rights
Global Disarmament
Free Trade
Social Justice
Environment

Human Rights
Global Disarmament
Free Trade
Social Justice
Environment

Exactly. And considering that included in that list that two of the resolutions are Global Disarmament, it almost seems that if you steer away from a Human Rights issue, that the chances that your idea is something that other players can more actively use is a bit greater.

NationStates United Nations Committees

The following is a list of all active and former NationStates United Nations created committees. Some of these committees have forums where nations may participate in the administrative or policy decisions of these committees. Subcommittees are listed under the committee they report to. This list does not include domestic committees that were formed by individual nations in response to NSUN decisions.

UN Committees / Organizations / Task Forces:
International Copyright Organization :: Resolution #45
International Maritime Standards Bureau :: Resolution #74
International Red Cross Organization :: Resolutions #29, #55, #76, #77, #84, #96
-> http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6
The Pretenama Panel (TPP) :: Resolutions #83, #92
-> http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=8
Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) :: Resolution #90
UN Committee on Illicit Arms Trafficking (UNCIAT) :: Resolution #57
-> http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~lst4606/ns/unciat/
-> http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=7
United Nations Council on AIDS (UNAIDS) :: Resolution #84
United Nations Educational Committee (UNEC) :: Resolution #54
United Nations Space Consortium (UNSC) :: Resolution #50
-> http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=5
-> http://invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?act=SC&c=8
United Nations World Organ Donation Center (UNWODC) :: Resolution #96
Universal Library Coalition (ULC) :: Resolution #97
-> Universal Library Coalition Executive Committee (ULCEC) :: Resolution #97
Global Library :: Resolution #86, #92
Universal Literary Exchange Network (ULEN): Resolution #97
Unnamed UN Fisheries Commission :: Resolution #70
Unnamed UN Sustainable Energy Committee :: Resolution #71
World Blood Bank :: Resolution #55
World Woodland Protection Team (WWP) :: Resolution #66

UN Lists and Registries:
World Heritage List :: Resolution #37

UN Funds:
n/a

The answer?

There isn't one. I've accounted for 16 active committees, one committee that was disbanned by a repeal, and one subcommittee. There also is a single list that is managed by the UN (most likely a committee).

I'd say that the best answers are that there are somewhere between 16 and 20 UN created committees.

The point isn't really to focus on an exact number, but rather to illustrate that committees haven't really been abused nor do they dominate the resolutions / debates we have in the NSUN. We are currently debating resolution #98. That means that less than 1/5 of the resolutions have created new committees, and though a few committees (the IRCO in particular) have been "revisited" by other resolutions, the powers of these committees are in fact extremely limited.

The list included two "unnamed" committees. In government talk in the real world, we often call these ad hoc committees. I myself have attended state level water committees that were unnamed. My favorite of which eventually officially became "The No-Name Committee". It was a committee of water stakeholders (read: very rich special ultility districts) and government agencies. The No-Name Committee would meet via teleconferences to talk about how to reoperate the State and Federal water projects here in California in order to meet Southern California's water demands, the Central Valley's water demands, and instream environmental uses (i.e. protecting endangered fish).

Committees come and go. Heck, tomorrow I'll be applying for a position on a citizen oversight committee formed by my County Government. When in grad school I served on a number of student-university committees, and even chaired one.

They aren't big dreadful monsters. They don't really amount to much but people making recommendations and passing those recommendations back to whatever group(s) formed them. But they are a good way for people whom are interested to meet and record "minutes" and then refer back to prior discussions.

The idea that we may not be allowed to roleplay them is frankly very sad. It actually displays a bit of of bias in favour of just war-roleplay (which while fun), without realizing that wars start for reasons. They are conflicts, usually over limited resources or in a few cases ideological differences.

One of the things I love about this game isn't that everybody will build a make-believe army and engage in wars, but that there are other players who create make-believe newpapers or other media outlets and participate in larger roleplays in a different way. Committees can be a great way to hint to other players that there are diplomatic tensions or a way to "in-character" ease the tensions and finish conflicts.

Just because people have shown they are can be very irresponsible with mobile phones (i.e. talking instead of driving), the solution isn't to ban the phones, but rather to restrict their use while driving. If the moderators (and others) feel that committees are destroying the quality of roleplay (which is a claim I've yet to see supported), then they should point to examples of this and then find a way to encourage responsible use of committees. They shouldn't be banned ...

That said, I have no problem with moderators telling proposal authors that their proposals are responsible or irresponsible, but I think that before any warning should be issued for "irresponsible committee" use, that an author should always be given a chance to defend him or herself. Just because we might not at first understand why somebody is trying to introduce a new resolution adding another committee to our "roleplay", doesn't make the idea bad. Perhaps in having to defend their idea, they will make a revision to their proposal and better justify their resolution.

Bottomline: I'd ask that some of the proposed rules that are very negative towards committees, be viewed as guidelines. Give our "cops" power to inforce the guidelines via judgement calls, but in order to avoid calls of being unfair, don't always issue warnings for misunderstandings. This is the system Enodia set-up and the system that the mods actually currently use.

Furthermore, the 150+ Delegates that endorse resolutions should also pay close attention to what is being done. They too are responsible for "UN resolution quality control". There are stinky resolutions. Stinky resolutions can and will continue to be adopted. But committees aren't the problem. A resolution can be stinky without one too! Let's keep that in mind.

I must question the inclusion of the blood bank. Considering the resolution that establishes makes it effectively part of IRCO, I felt it better to include it with IRCO instead of calling it a separate committee.

I also only think that committees actually established by a UN resolution count. UNAIDS is one that is arguably in that category, but at the same time we must recognize that not all of the committees mentioned in the resolutions are actual NS committees and that some are real-life committees referenced by resolution authors. There are, of course, real-life committees that also exist in NS by resolution, which I would include in the list of committees.

And committees of repealed resolutions obviously don't count.

And committees of repealed resolutions obviously don't count.
Why don't they count? The question is "How many committees have been adopted by UN Resolutions?" Saying that they don't count is like saying that there aren't any more Communists in Germany because the wall fell.

Why don't they count? The question is "How many committees have been adopted by UN Resolutions?" Saying that they don't count is like saying that there aren't any more Communists in Germany because the wall fell.

I like that analogy, but only because Germany is one of my favorite places. :)

I've long maintained that a repeal doesn't erase a UN resolution (or the actions related to that UN resolution) from history. The vote happened. The resolution was passed, adopted, and enacted. A repeal is just a formal way of changing our minds, and for various reasons.

In any event, the number of committees is still subject to interpetation. Grosseschnauzer pointed out in the UNO forum that the Great Library was really superceded by the Universal Library Coalition, in his government's opinion. That happens to make sense to my government as well.

My point is, it all just depends upon your perspective.

Why don't they count?

They technically no longer exist.

The question is "How many committees have been adopted by UN Resolutions?"

No, the question is "How many NS UN Committees Are there?" "Are" is present tense.

Saying that they don't count is like saying that there aren't any more Communists in Germany because the wall fell.

Actually, it's equivolent to saying West Germany is no longer separate from East Germany.

No, the question is "How many NS UN Committees Are there?" "Are" is present tense.

Actually, there are two questions. Perhaps you two could decide together which one you would like to answer and go from there. :)

How many player created UN committees have been adopted by NS UN resolutions?

QUIZ: How many NS UN Committees Are there?