NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all,

Hope you're good. I've only been here very briefly for a bit over a week due to other commitments, but I've just had a look through some of the comments on this board, old telegrams etc. and thought that I'd just make a couple of points -

1. It's not particularly hard to get a UN resolution passed, as long as it has a 'hook' that people can identify with (e.g. oil spills, dolphins, chemical weapons). I passed one at the fourth attempt, despite the text being imperfect. Powerhungry Chipmunks have more than one, some of which are better than others. Once a proposal gets through quorum to voting stage it usually passes, unless it's blatantly rubbish. So I would say, go for it! You've got nothing to lose, except maybe an hour or two of your time and some of your pride if you fail. I think DLE said at one point that they'd never personally authored a proposal - just worked 'behind the scenes'. To which I say - why not? Take a stand, and practice what you preach. Go on - I dares ya!

2. So, getting a proposal to quorum. There are a hard core of nations who'll support any half-decently written proposal without persusasion, but this isn't very many - maybe 20. There are more who'll support a proposal unbidden if it sounds good - maybe 60. Nations seem generally more predisposed to vote for new proposals than repeals, particularly those based on national sovereignty arguments. The first two proposals I submitted were repeals based on national sovereignty arguments, and they both got about 30 endorsements. I see similar proposals whenever I check, and none of them seem to have any chance of success. So I'll turn it into a law - REPEAL PROPOSALS BASED ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY ARGUMENTS DON'T WORK. (Call it Mayakovskia's Law if you must). Feel free to prove me wrong, but I don't think you will.

3. You need to telegram people to get a proposal to quorum stage. Just prior to getting 'Ban Chemical Weapons' through after a telegram campaign I got over 60 endorsements for a proposal called 'Against Weaponisation of Space', which I didn't telegram. I may have got a few more endorsements if I'd written it better and if it had had less inconsistencies, but not 80 more. I got BCW through to quorum by sending about 200 telegrams in a targeted campaigh, which doesn't really take too long at all. So how to choose? Well, find a couple of proposals that you think will have a correlation - that you think, 'If a person voted for that, there's a fair chance they'd vote for this' - and politely telegram them. In this case, it was 'Save The Dolphins' (or something quite similar) and 'Against Weaponisation of Space'. I think the success rate of this was about 60%, which was enough to push it far enough to pass. Again, this percentage would probably be higher if the proposal had been better. Tip: Stick a hyperlink to the page that the proposal is currently on to make it as easy as possible for the nation you telegram. Then sit back to watch the endorsements roll in!

So there you have it. One the proposal goes through to vote, you will get some idiots sending you telegrams saying 'DIE! DIE! DIE!', or calling you a 'homoerotic socialist' on here (backhanded compliment? ;)), but you can safely ignore them. As lamented by a few, most people don't read this forum before voting. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and put it down to lack of time. Opinion on here was about 2:1 against, but the resolution still passed by about 1.5:1. To those fairly new to this: Don't be intimidated by the old guard. Get some resolutions up on the board. Passed UN resolutions are full of Human Rights and Environmental legislation, so maybe change tack and try and get one through on Social Justice, Moral Decency, Free Trade. BCW was the first 'Global Disarmament' for a while. The most proposed (and most failed) legislation in the history of NS is the legalisation of marijuana, which I guess goes to show the old maxim that smoking weed and cogent political action rarely go hand in hand. If you wanted to give that a go with a decent telegram campaign, I'm sure it would go through - I can pretty much guarantee you that more than 6% of UN delegates smoke the herb now and again. So try it - anything's got to be better than yet another Powerhungry Chipmunks one. Diversify!

Finally, to those who say that BCW doesn't make any difference. To role-played international incidents, probably not, but that's something participated in by a very small minority of nations. It is a 'Global Disarmament' resolution, strength 'Significant', and its passing means that the arms expenditure of more than 30,000 UN nations has now been cut, freeing up more money for lower taxes, healthcare, education, and social welfare. I'm sure Mr. Barry has a set of statistics running on NS, and if you looked at 'Arms spending per capita' on a graph, then it would have a significant downward spike on it, related purely to this resolution. I think that this is a good thing, and I believe that he would too.

So. What are you waiting for? Change the world! :cool:

Hi all,

Hope you're good. I've only been here very briefly for a bit over a week due to other commitments, but I've just had a look through some of the comments on this board, old telegrams etc. and thought that I'd just make a couple of points -

Yay. Yet another one of these damned things.

1. It's not particularly hard to get a UN resolution passed, as long as it has a 'hook' that people can identify with (e.g. oil spills, dolphins, chemical weapons). I passed one at the fourth attempt, despite the text being imperfect. Powerhungry Chipmunks have more than one, some of which are better than others. Once a proposal gets through quorum to voting stage it usually passes, unless it's blatantly rubbish.

In some cases, even if it is.

So I would say, go for it! You've got nothing to lose, except maybe an hour or two of your time and some of your pride if you fail. I think DLE said at one point that they'd never personally authored a proposal - just worked 'behind the scenes'. To which I say - why not? Take a stand, and practice what you preach. Go on - I dares ya!

I have my reasons. Most of them are none of your business or will likely end up with you spending the next few decades in an 8x6 cell, and the rest you won't understand without knowing the ones you shouldn't.

2. So, getting a proposal to quorum. There are a hard core of nations who'll support any half-decently written proposal without persusasion, but this isn't very many - maybe 20. There are more who'll support a proposal unbidden if it sounds good - maybe 60. Nations seem generally more predisposed to vote for new proposals than repeals, particularly those based on national sovereignty arguments. The first two proposals I submitted were repeals based on national sovereignty arguments, and they both got about 30 endorsements. I see similar proposals whenever I check, and none of them seem to have any chance of success. So I'll turn it into a law - REPEAL PROPOSALS BASED ON NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY ARGUMENTS DON'T WORK. (Call it Mayakovskia's Law if you must). Feel free to prove me wrong, but I don't think you will.

Actually, the repeal thing is pretty much true. The national sovereignity crowd gets no respect when it comes to repeals, but that's because most of the repeals make the entire crowd look like a bunch of idiots. When it comes to national sovereignity resolutions, that's a different story. The UN has a nasty habbit of passing more that anally rape national sovereignity than passing any that protect it.

3. You need to telegram people to get a proposal to quorum stage. Just prior to getting 'Ban Chemical Weapons' through after a telegram campaign I got over 60 endorsements for a proposal called 'Against Weaponisation of Space', which I didn't telegram. I may have got a few more endorsements if I'd written it better and if it had had less inconsistencies, but not 80 more. I got BCW through to quorum by sending about 200 telegrams in a targeted campaigh, which doesn't really take too long at all. So how to choose? Well, find a couple of proposals that you think will have a correlation - that you think, 'If a person voted for that, there's a fair chance they'd vote for this' - and politely telegram them. In this case, it was 'Save The Dolphins' (or something quite similar) and 'Against Weaponisation of Space'. I think the success rate of this was about 60%, which was enough to push it far enough to pass. Again, this percentage would probably be higher if the proposal had been better. Tip: Stick a hyperlink to the page that the proposal is currently on to make it as easy as possible for the nation you telegram. Then sit back to watch the endorsements roll in!

Won't always work. For one thing, the delegates have to actually like it or at least think it's worthy of UN consideration. For another, many delegates are actually annoyed by this, and may even campaign against you if you dare TG them about it again.

So there you have it. One the proposal goes through to vote, you will get some idiots sending you telegrams saying 'DIE! DIE! DIE!', or calling you a 'homoerotic socialist' on here (backhanded compliment? ;)), but you can safely ignore them. As lamented by a few, most people don't read this forum before voting. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and put it down to lack of time. Opinion on here was about 2:1 against, but the resolution still passed by about 1.5:1.

Considering most people don't read the forum, you're sending mixed messages with this.

To those fairly new to this: Don't be intimidated by the old guard. Get some resolutions up on the board.

Very, very bad advice. The UN is already viewed as being full of suicidal idiots who are easy to conquer. Getting more idiotic resolutions passed only increases this view and the chances of your nation being attacked.

Passed UN resolutions are full of Human Rights and Environmental legislation, so maybe change tack and try and get one through on Social Justice, Moral Decency, Free Trade. BCW was the first 'Global Disarmament' for a while. The most proposed (and most failed) legislation in the history of NS is the legalisation of marijuana, which I guess goes to show the old maxim that smoking weed and cogent political action rarely go hand in hand. If you wanted to give that a go with a decent telegram campaign, I'm sure it would go through - I can pretty much guarantee you that more than 6% of UN delegates smoke the herb now and again. So try it - anything's got to be better than yet another Powerhungry Chipmunks one. Diversify!

The Human Rights category is pretty much covered, environmental is a bad idea due to the issues of where nations are located, Social Justice is as covered as it's likely to get, Moral Decency is really not given any respect, and Global Disarmament is suicidal. Pretty much, we're running out of ideas that can be done without having to cut membership numbers.

Finally, to those who say that BCW doesn't make any difference. To role-played international incidents, probably not, but that's something participated in by a very small minority of nations. It is a 'Global Disarmament' resolution, strength 'Significant', and its passing means that the arms expenditure of more than 30,000 UN nations has now been cut, freeing up more money for lower taxes, healthcare, education, and social welfare. I'm sure Mr. Barry has a set of statistics running on NS, and if you looked at 'Arms spending per capita' on a graph, then it would have a significant downward spike on it, related purely to this resolution. I think that this is a good thing, and I believe that he would too.

This is a roleplaying forum, albeit a "light" one. Roleplaying is the more important aspect of the resolution. If it has no effect on roleplaying, it's worthless. By your logic, we can simply submit resolutions worded "Moo oink squee squee" with only different titles and categories and it'd be a good thing. Please, stop with the bad advice.

So. What are you waiting for? Change the world! :cool:

The world can also be changed by a few thousand nuclear missiles. Change is not always a good thing.

Two nations, two models. Take your pick.

Two different levels of experience as well.

It would help if you argue against what I've said. Unfortunately, most people suffer from the "age = wisdom" logical fallacy. Though, my words are based on my experiences on here since I first started posting.

PS I really enjoy a lot of your posts, and the way you can deconstruct things, but I disagree with you on this. I'd rather there was a bad proposal being voted on, and rejected, than none at all, as there is now. I don't really agree that reducing the number of endorsements needed to reach quorum is the way to go though. I think it's more commitment, better proposals, and better and more diplomacy by those creating the proposals.

Your paragraph 3 is incredibly cryptic. I was :confused: when reading it.

Two different levels of experience as well.

It would help if you argue against what I've said. Unfortunately, most people suffer from the "age = wisdom" logical fallacy. Though, my words are based on my experiences on here since I first started posting.

I don't really want to argue in piecemeal. I'll cede you the points you have, but I think that the original post stands as a whole. People can do with it what they will. If they agree with the sentiments, I don't feel I need to convince them further.

I'm young as well (if that was your point) and have no illusions about older people necessarily being wiser or more intelligent. Greater experience is a good thing, but it can sometimes become tempered by cynicism. I think that the UN can be helped with an injection of newer members making proposals and trying to get them through - people and proposals that may be naive, or imperfect, or inexperienced, but are vibrant and energetic. If someone wants to do what I did - say to themselves, I'll keep making proposals until I pass one, just to see if I'm capable of it - then why not?

The third paragraph is meant to be cryptic.

The problem with a bad proposal being voted on is the fact it might actually pass. That's what happened with the National Systems of Tax resolution.

Mayakovskia']I don't really want to argue in piecemeal. I'll cede you the points you have, but I think that the original post stands as a whole. People can do with it what they will. If they agree with the sentiments, I don't feel I need to convince them further.

If they agree with the sentiments, they are likely not reading this forum in the first place. Price we pay.

I'm young as well (if that was your point) and have no illusions about older people necessarily being wiser or more intelligent. Greater experience is a good thing, but it can sometimes become tempered by cynicism. I think that the UN can be helped with an injection of newer members making proposals and trying to get them through - people and proposals that may be naive, or imperfect, or inexperienced, but are vibrant and energetic. If someone wants to do what I did - say to themselves, I'll keep making proposals until I pass one, just to see if I'm capable of it - then why not?

Actually, my point was that most people will look at the ages of our nations and judge based on that. It's incredibly stupid to do, but it's done quite often. My own experience itself is tempered by the vast cynicism and the realization that humanity's claim to civilization is about as truthful as a hog's claim to inventing the nuclear bomb.

People can keep making proposals, but that doesn't mean they'll ever make a good one. My objective is to get the shining gems into being resolutions while keeping out the vast field of crap that is the proposal list. The problem is that the crap has started to seep through.

Mayakovskia']PS I really enjoy a lot of your posts, and the way you can deconstruct things, but I disagree with you on this. I'd rather there was a bad proposal being voted on, and rejected, than none at all, as there is now. I don't really agree that reducing the number of endorsements needed to reach quorum is the way to go though. I think it's more commitment, better proposals, and better and more diplomacy by those creating the proposals.

Your paragraph 3 is incredibly cryptic. I was :confused: when reading it.

Maya...I couldn't disagree you more, if I wanted too. I would rather see none at all than bad ones. Why? Because from bad ones come the lovelys of the past, i.e. Save the dolphins, Sewage, just to name two. In this game, if something gets through proposal... It usually passes, no matter the fact that you can't enforce, its nationalistic, etc.

I have seen some very well written proposals, and I try to let the delegate who wrote it know, by post or telelgram. The problem is that most are junk to begin with....Take this biological weapons ban. If you go back and read that piece of junk...That was passed, you have two ways to read it: 1) You can't have ANY weapon at all, save robots. Why?? Read it. It unclearly states that no biological weapon is allowed, period. Is a human not a biological weapon? 2) Any biological weapon is allowed....Again, it so unclear that you can't tell. Hence....It's junk.

The current sewage proposal. I rant and rave about the nationalistic tendencies of the delegates here, and this is just further proof. This proposal states that this is a world problem. How?? It never states how, IMO. Also, since when did this UN just include the planet that the delegate is posting about? I have seen too many resolution passed that don't apply to my nation. I have spoken about it. Any proposal that goes against one, simple, thought will get a no vote from me. That thought.... Is this something would worry every nation, third world or not, on every planet in the universe? If my answer is no....I vote no. If my answer is yes....You have my vote.

I voted against the dolphins, computer crimes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc. and will continue to do so. Until this body begins to acknowledge that we are not one nation under the flag of the UN, I will continue to remind every poster that their proposals go against my nations sovreignty and my right to rulle country, my way.

Mayakovskia']I think that the UN can be helped with an injection of newer members making proposals and trying to get them through - people and proposals that may be naive, or imperfect, or inexperienced, but are vibrant and energetic.

In a business there are advantages to 'new blood'. Often, when a business is failing, comopany leaders--entrenched and experienced and old, management--will be sacked and new management (leaders, players, etc.) will be brought in. And, as you say, this new management can be naive, imperfect, and unaware of the nuances of the company. They may also possess insights the old management has become too stick-in-the-mud to accept or realize. In the UN, of course, this translates to a principle of newbie/dissenter's amnesty: just because a player is new to the UN or the forum, or disagree with your representation of things doesn't mean he or she is 'wrong'.

I personally don't think there's a heirarchical relationship between age in bringing up good ideas (save, maybe, those who have not yet reached adulthood); I feel the relationship is one of difference. The young are likely to have new and innovative looks on life, though they lack experience and understanding of certain realities of the field they are in. The old are likely to have the experience, but likely have much more occupational blindness (the lens through which they see the field is much narrower--narrowed by their experience and self-importance). I think the young and the old have differences, but neither has a definite or outstanding advantage over the other. Combination of the youthful openness and the aged wisdom, of course, is best.

As far as your guide, I think you've got the basics down. A lot of people don't realize that new ideas are still out there, or that even a well-written proposal needs a telegram campaign to succeed--regardless of how well one convinces himeself or herself of victory in the forums or the region.


So try it - anything's got to be better than yet another Powerhungry Chipmunks one.

Over 35,000 UN members appear to disagree with you on this...

1. It's not particularly hard to get a UN resolution passed, as long as it has a 'hook' that people can identify with (e.g. oil spills, dolphins, chemical weapons). I passed one at the fourth attempt, despite the text being imperfect.

Excuse me for saying so, but it almost sounds as if you're proud of the fact that you know your resolution wasn't up to the standards it could have been and that you managed to get it passed anyway, and that would be incredibly dissapointing. I would personally be ashamed to have passed a resolution which I knew was sub-standard... which is why I've had the replacement biological weapons draft proposal up for review on the forums for well over a week, and editted it several times in the process to address any perceived shortcomings.

Powerhungry Chipmunks have more than one, some of which are better than others. Once a proposal gets through quorum to voting stage it usually passes, unless it's blatantly rubbish. So I would say, go for it! You've got nothing to lose, except maybe an hour or two of your time and some of your pride if you fail.

...and the respect of all the more thoughtful, serious nations who would like to have the NSUN accomplish worthwhile things (at least from an in-game point of view) instead of being seen as a joke organization that passes resolutions like that "DVD Region Removal"** tripe if you manage to get a garbage proposal through...

**(Two sentences long, one of them complaining about the ability of people to watch freaking movies from different countries conveniently and the other saying we only need one DVD region.... while managing to spell "we" as "wek"... and it's enshrined on page 1 on the books of UN legislation with a passing vote margin of over 5:1.

You can bet I'm setting my sites on getting rid of that thing at some later point in time.)

2. So, getting a proposal to quorum. There are a hard core of nations who'll support any half-decently written proposal without persusasion, but this isn't very many - maybe 20. There are more who'll support a proposal unbidden if it sounds good - maybe 60. Nations seem generally more predisposed to vote for new proposals than repeals,

You got that part right... the Bio weapons repeal is requiring me to work my butt off. (PLUG: A little help from sympathizers reading along is always appreciated... lobby your delegates if you're not one!)

Over 35,000 UN members appear to disagree with you on this...

And besides, Mayakovskia hasn't seen the proposals I'm planning to submit yet. :D There may be some forthcoming mind-changing about who's the most dangerous legislator in the UN.

The most dangerous proposer is the one you don't see comming and who manages to screw over everybody except themselves. You have to ask yourself why it is that I haven't posted any drafts in months on this forum.

The most dangerous proposer is the one you don't see comming and who manages to screw over everybody except themselves. You have to ask yourself why it is that I haven't posted any drafts in months on this forum.
You mean things like the infamous misplaced apostrophe? (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=53)

I must thank you for the telegram campaign idea. I shall have to remember it when I start proposing proposals.....

Chipmunks -

Very lucid description of the young/old blood thing, pretty much along the same lines that I was thinking, only clearer. The rhetoric I used about your nation was meant for newer UN members/proposers, but looking back it seems like it might be a bit offensive towards you, so apologies for that.

Ref -

I'm not gloating about getting an imperfect proposal through, it's more like a sigh of relief. I'm glad that I got one through - it's what I set out to do in the first place - but in hindsight I'd probably have done things differently. The first post in this thread is something of an attempt to pass on what I've learned during the process, and with comments from others, hopefully stop people making the same mistakes, while letting them know what worked.

Right, off to Glastonbury in a couple of hours. Have a good weekend, all!

Mayakovskia']Chipmunks -

Very lucid description of the young/old blood thing, pretty much along the same lines that I was thinking, only clearer. The rhetoric I used about your nation was meant for newer UN members/proposers, but looking back it seems like it might be a bit offensive towards you, so apologies for that.


No worries. :)

"DVD Region Removal"**
--snip--
**(Two sentences long, one of them complaining about the ability of people to watch freaking movies from different countries conveniently and the other saying we only need one DVD region.... while managing to spell "we" as "wek"... and it's enshrined on page 1 on the books of UN legislation with a passing vote margin of over 5:1.

You can bet I'm setting my sites on getting rid of that thing at some later point in time.)
Now that's a repeal I can definitely get behind. I'm delegate for another month and a half - get a move on!

And besides, Mayakovskia hasn't seen the proposals I'm planning to submit yet. :D There may be some forthcoming mind-changing about who's the most dangerous legislator in the UN.
Crap on stilts. I'd better get a move on...

You mean things like the infamous misplaced apostrophe? (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=53)

Oh, I'm sure DLE has something a bit more stylish in mind. ;)

Oh, I'm sure DLE has something a bit more stylish in mind. ;)
Of course it'd be more stylish, but my example still managed to screw over everyone but the author.

Trends:

Passing resolution 107 (Disarmament: Significant) has been followed by the expected repeal of resolution 16 (Disarmament: Significant), which will cancel each other out and leave defence spending in UN states where it was to start with. This looks like it will be followed by Hotrodder's (Intenational Security: Mild) proposal, which will leave UN states with higher defence spending per capita than before resolution 107. If Chipmunks then takes the opportunity to get the repeal of 107 through while there's still momentum, this response will only be accentuated.

Very interesting cybernetic feedback response.

That said, all of the defence spending reports I've seen for Ecopoeia declare a sum total of zero gifts, so the UN effect on my nation is, so far, negligible.

And that is as it should be.

'Ban Chemical Weapons' - about 180 endorsements.

'Repeal Ban Chemical Weapons' - 51 endorsements, off about the same amount of telegramming.

Should have taken my own advice, instead of trying to prove myself wrong... :p