NationStates Jolt Archive

I am planning to propose the following UN resolution:

Repeal Resolution 107
NOTING that non-UN nations outnumber UN nations by about 3:1

NOTING ALSO that many non-UN nations have hostile relations with UN nations

NOTING ALSO that the policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has been the most effective way of maintaining peace known to humankind.

NOTING ALSO that Chemical weapons were (prior to resolution 107) used by many small countries to deter an attack by a larger, more powerful country, as per the MAD strategy.

NOTING ALSO that many small nations do not have the money to maintain a nuclear stockpile

IT IS APPARENT that this resolution denies small, UN countries the ability to deter attack by a larger, aggressive state.

THEREFORE, the only logical course of action is to repeal UN resolution 107.

I was just wondering what others think about this.

You do know that chemical weapons are not actually banned by that resolution, right?

i belive that we cant just rely on nagosiations we need tobe able to defent are selves so i believe we should repel resolution 107 !!!!

i belive that we cant just rely on nagosiations we need tobe able to defent are selves so i believe we should repel resolution 107 !!!!

This post has the most typos I have ever seen, and I have been on a lot of forums. Please run future posts through a spell check. Thanks

You do know that chemical weapons are not actually banned by that resolution, right?

Yeah, i included this in my original draft:
NOTING ALSO that resolution 107 is worded so poorly that it could be interpreted to include virtually all weapons or none at all.
FOR EXAMPLE, one could say that soldiers can not fight in wars because the human body requires chemical reactions between oxygen, glucose and ADP.
FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE, one could argue that Chlorine Gas, the first chemical weapon ever used in war, was in fact an “Elemental” weapon because it works using the element chlorine, thus avoiding this resolution.


I just thought it would probably hurt its chances of approval so i was not planning on putting it in. do you think that would help?

Yeah, i included this in my original draft:


I just thought it would probably hurt its chances of approval so i was not planning on putting it in. do you think that would help?

I think that should be your focus.

Just so you lot know: The Kingdom of Harrowvia, the UN Delegate of the British Antarcitic Territories, is working on a repeal and re-write of the resolution. Voting ends on June 25th, so if you're in support of a re-write, please support this proposal.

I just thought it would probably hurt its chances of approval so i was not planning on putting it in. do you think that would help?

I personally think it'll hurt your proposal's chances should it reach quorum. If nations read this and believe the resolution does nothing, it throws a wrench in your proposal's appeal for timeliness--or that the matter is pressing. I mean, if there's no effect of the resolution (which is arguable) many UN members will follow that to the thought that there's no reason to repeal it either. Plus there's the problem of players' attention spans. Explaining that a resolution "doesn't do anything" takes more compelling argumentation and a longer period of concentration on the part of your audience.

Also, the claim that it has no effect is likely offensive to many of the voting populace you need to court. A majority voted for the resolution (10,000 to 7,000 I believe), you have to convince everyone who originally voted against it to vote against it again--and convince some of those who voted for it that you've found a flaw in it. If that flaw is something that seems obvious, it could be easily construed (and will be construed by some) as insulting the UN members who voted for the resolution in the first place. A repeal will be less effective if it beats up on the resolution or a group (as beating up on the resolution beats up on those that voted For the resolution by proxy) than if it is humble, neutral, and insightful. I wouldn't recommend including tohse clauses in the repeal.

Problem is that most delegates don't support proposal unless they are personally interested. It gets hard to get support when there are so many proposals floating around.

I have posted a repeal bill that I think adequately sums up all of the reasons that the bill could be repealed:

"A U.N. law prohibiting chemical weapons is a great idea. The precedent for such a law has been laid out clearly, and we have voted to enact such a law.
Many attempts have been made to repeal 'Ban Chemical Weapons' from the day that it was enacted into U.N. law. Almost all of these were disregarded, probably because they argued that countries should be able to posess or use chemical weapons. I believe that the United Nations has spoken out against the use of chemical weapons, and that is not a reason to repeal this law.
'Ban Chemical Weapons' is a fine start to a law, but it requires more information. As pointed out in many of the attempted repeals, there is no technical definition of what a chemical weapon is. We all know that a chemical weapon is a large amount of some chemical that is harmful to humans, set up to be dispersed in such a way that the chemicals would affect a significant number of people in one 'attack'. The law never states this, or anything like this.
'Ban Chemical Weapons' also never states how, specifically, a nation would be in violation. It bans 'all production and trafficking' of chemical weapons. But what does this entail? May any country posess any amount of chemical weaponry for testing or experimentation? How will the U.N. make sure that this law is enforced? More importantly, what are the consequences for breaking this law?
The Council of Tambien believes that 'Ban Chemical Weapons needs to be repealed so that a better, more comprehensive law can be enacted."

What do you think of that?

I guess that's fairly well written...

But I am one of those who believe "that countries should be able to possess or use chemical weapons" so i'm not sure I would vote for that and I know that my region’s delegate would not support it.

I have posted a repeal bill that I think adequately sums up all of the reasons that the bill could be repealed:

"A U.N. law prohibiting chemical weapons is a great idea. The precedent for such a law has been laid out clearly, and we have voted to enact such a law.
Many attempts have been made to repeal 'Ban Chemical Weapons' from the day that it was enacted into U.N. law. Almost all of these were disregarded, probably because they argued that countries should be able to posess or use chemical weapons. I believe that the United Nations has spoken out against the use of chemical weapons, and that is not a reason to repeal this law.
'Ban Chemical Weapons' is a fine start to a law, but it requires more information. As pointed out in many of the attempted repeals, there is no technical definition of what a chemical weapon is. We all know that a chemical weapon is a large amount of some chemical that is harmful to humans, set up to be dispersed in such a way that the chemicals would affect a significant number of people in one 'attack'. The law never states this, or anything like this.
'Ban Chemical Weapons' also never states how, specifically, a nation would be in violation. It bans 'all production and trafficking' of chemical weapons. But what does this entail? May any country posess any amount of chemical weaponry for testing or experimentation? How will the U.N. make sure that this law is enforced? More importantly, what are the consequences for breaking this law?
The Council of Tambien believes that 'Ban Chemical Weapons needs to be repealed so that a better, more comprehensive law can be enacted."

What do you think of that?

I, too, think it sums up a lot of the positions against the resolution. However, I'm afraid it relies too much on narrative. We live in a visual world where pictorial representations have more weight than narrative ones. And in this entirely text game we are inundated with words and devoid of visual stimuli. You have to make a proposal text visually novel and arousing for people to bother reading through it all--such is the nature of the western, "McDonald's-ish" consumer. Mostly this is done by shortening the text, adding white space, and using punctuation, capitalization, or eye-catching letters or phrases to the most important lines.

Also, there's a disadvantage to listing all the arguments against the resolution. A divided proposal is a defeated proposal. In order for a proposal to have any sort of staying power over its audience it needs to be succinct and focused. The second section of your argument wanders into realms of what the resolution does and doesn't do--which detracts from all the earlier points. I say, shorten it and frame it in the modern conventions (of lines with spaces between them and with capitalized verbs at their head), and rid it of the "This chem resolution doesn't do anything" argument.

Oh, and you should remember it's going to be a resolution for a lot longer than it will be a proposal. Proposals are best phrases as doing something (in present tense) rather than as going to do something, or proposing that something be done in the future.

actually, i think countries should only use chems in defense. But 107 tries to ban this.

i've added a poll to this to see what people think.

Just as a note on the whole effort of repealing 107... there are currently FOUR different repeal proposals for resolution 107 simultaneously in the proposal list. Everyone interested in repealing this resolution might want to consider collaborating on a single attempt they can focus all their collective energy on.

Just a thought. I think it's going to take waiting some more time after it's passage to be successful in repealing it, but if you really want to try...

There are two different groups that are trying to repeal 107

Those that want Chemical Weapons

Those that don't but realize 107 doesn't stop anyone from having them.


......yeah

im probably going to not propose it untill most of the "junk" ones are out of the system. There are some fairly pathetic ones out there now...

By the way, does anyone know where I can get a list of the people who voted agenst 107?

there's a list?

im probably going to not propose it untill most of the "junk" ones are out of the system. There are some fairly pathetic ones out there now...

Yeah, you have to wait for the right time. Most of these "junk" repeals leave after their submitters see that after three days (and 0 to 28 telegrams) they only have 10 approvals. It might take a while, but there should be an opening. It took a lot of waiting for there to be an opening in "Legalize Prostitution", and a lesser amount of waiting for the repeals of "Education for All" and "Required Basic Healthcare".

By the way, does anyone know where I can get a list of the people who voted agenst 107?
Unless someone ganked it before voting ended. The UNA and Texas (the first one is a group the second a region) are often the places to go for that sort of information. I would have it (in fact, I meant to get it), but I slept in that morning.

Who are the UNA? What do they do?

As a nonmember of UN who is waiting approval of my nations membership I feel this issue is one of the first issues needs to be dealt with. It was mentioned certain hostile nations outside the UN don't won't this resolution 107 at all as it would mean trouble for their national income as they sale large numbers of many of the banned weapons. Outside the UN they can not only make and sale them they can use them, against anyone weak and not able to find defense against a stronger savage power willing to use force to feed their greeds.

As far a coming to a common cause on the issue, it must be done as this issue is drawing more attention than present dangers are and we all need to act on them soon... I have said my piece and hope something is done soon, as each day there is no issue to guide in the blocking of illegal weapons more civil folks are being killed or made slaves in several nations simply because they choose peace and selected not to have a massive Navy and Army thus promoting all these heavy weapons systems in the name of defense of ones own sovernty and liberty. Bull to that if the people are in chains or dead serving some rebel has no mercy on them...Zarta of the Garne :p

Who are the UNA? What do they do?
The United Nations Association (UNA) are a group interested in things pertaining to the UN, be it study, committee participation, proposal darfting, whatever. The group is entirely open as far as membership and is aptly managed by the UN veteran, and highly intelligent resolution author, Mikitivity.

http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?

There are a lot of things to do. And, as I said, it's open to just about everyone. You can ask around members there if anyone kept a list of delegate votes. They can probably direct you to the Texas forums, too.

The UN should stay out of military affairs, end of story.

Who are the UNA? What do they do?

Okay, you got the advertisement. Now for the truth.

The UNA is a group out to attempt to improve the UN. The group as a whole is mostly ignored or outright mocked/flamed when advertised. Member-wise, it really only has two active members, and you don't want to know the politics involved when it comes to relations with certain UN members. Personally, I would advise you asked around about the group before joining, and make sure to ask the forum regulars. If you want the politics, I advise painkillers with a couple shots of vodka first.

Keep in mind that nothing the UNA publishes, or even says, is backed by the UN, utilized by UN members, acknowledged as existing by most UN members, or even really given respect by most UN members. Note that the group as a whole has to advertise to newbies, and that of them maybe one in ten actually pays attention to it. What's really going to make you sad: The UNA is not really special even in how it is ignored. It's actually pretty average for a UN group in how it is treated by others. It doesn't have the outright enemies of the NSO or the disrespect of the TPP, of which only the TPP is actually famous (but not for good reasons).

The UN should stay out of military affairs, end of story.

Why? You have some reason to back this up, or just a random claim?

The UNA is a group out to attempt to improve the UN. The group as a whole is mostly ignored or outright mocked/flamed when advertised. Member-wise, it really only has two active members, and you don't want to know the politics involved when it comes to relations with certain UN members. Personally, I would advise you asked around about the group before joining, and make sure to ask the forum regulars. If you want the politics, I advise painkillers with a couple shots of vodka first.

On the contrary, only a vocal minority have negative opinions about those two (of the many) UNA members. A large number of people ignoring the organization is to be expected as a large number of people have never heard of it, or are uninterested (a large number of people, about 6 billion, ignore Ma's sandwich shack, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have good ribs ;)). I must laugh about the derision of "the only two active members". I assume you mean Mik and I (as we’re the only two you seem interested in painting as vigilantes out to make the UN into “what it’s supposed to be about”). And it’s obvious to anyone in the forum that your opinion of us and either of our opinions of you are colored by negative interactions we’ve all had. How that makes your less-than-complimentary perception of us “truth” and our views of the UNA “advertisement” is really beyond me. And I should point out that some people mock/flame some of your thoughts or politics when advertised, too, DLE. They're just careful not to let you see it.

I really don’t see where you’re getting this “out to improve the UN” stuff. UNA action, that I’ve seen, is documentation and study of the UN, which will improve the understanding of the UN, but it isn’t meant as some crusade to “improve” the UN or make it into “what it’s supposed to be about”. No, that’s a figment of your imagination. Since you only acknowledge two members of the UNA, let’s list publications they’ve had so far in the UNA: (1) A list of all the UN resolutions sorted by category, (2) a white paper, and (3) the beginning of a rhetorical analysis. (!) It’s pretty hard to make a list of the UN resolutions biased in some way (unless, of course, Mik has used his super-secret code to subliminally transmute his ideas on the UN to us through the format of that information presentation--spooky). (2) A white paper is supposed to express an opinion about a solution to a problem (which I advise you read Mik’s white paper before going off about it). (3) And rhetorical criticism is specifically designed not to pass judgment on the artifacts it examines. Saddam Hussein’s speech before the First Gulf War, about Iraq’s God-determined victory, is of just as much worth and merit to rhetorical criticism as Reagan’s Challenger Address (you know, “[they] ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’”).

That Mik and I have some sort of “elevation of the UN” agenda or are trying to improve the UN through the UNA is a load of hooka, and entirely from distortion by certain forum regulars who think it might discredit us (for goodness-know-what reasons). The UNA is an RP--voluntary--about the UN. It’s well within bounds of RP, and without the malicious underpinnings you aim to find in it. We just find it fun to RP academic and professional-style publications regarding the UN. If you don’t like this, ignore it.

Keep in mind that nothing the UNA publishes, or even says, is backed by the UN, utilized by UN members, acknowledged as existing by most UN members, or even really given respect by most UN members. Note that the group as a whole has to advertise to newbies, and that of them maybe one in ten actually pays attention to it.
Hardly. It is correct that papers and studies published by independent chapters of the UNA are not officially from the UN (just as the Sovereign Territory of the UN, which RPs as it being the whole of the UN is not officially from the UN). But the UNA is well made use of--by those that are interested in it. About the UNA's implied bias, a nuance you're conveniently overlooking is that the UNA is made up of chapters in the nations that are members. So, obviously, "the politics" (as you put it) will reflect the UNA member nations' thoughts and tendencies. If you want to "right the ship" from leaning a certain way or inject your ideas which you likely feel are more correct than ours, then you should join and make your own chapter and stop arbitrarily complaining because you don't like the players who use the UNA. As Vastiva says, a group or person who just says “no” all the time is full of rubbish.

Also, I'm not aware of the UNA's desperate need to search for members among newbies. Not only have I never seen especial advertisement to newbies (which is funny, because you advertise your ideas to newbies a lot, too), but Nationstates players ignoring things is a fact of the game. It is shown through telegram campaigns, through the forum, through the fact that nations die. NS is a game, and the players have a finite amount time and attention to invest in the game’s much larger, near-infinite number of stimuli. It is not an accurate or in any way meaningful measurement of a UN group's success, for DLE to pronounce how much DLE thinks it's ignored by the 130,000 nations that aren't members of it, aren’t interested in it, or aren’t even aware of it. How loudly one speaks is not a good rubric for one’s influence, success, or absolute correctness. The UNA isn't here to be known by everyone and everything. It's set up so its members can have a little fun and a little RP in the frame of the UNA. Why you are so interested in attacking others having fun is beyond me.

What's really going to make you sad: The UNA is not really special even in how it is ignored. It's actually pretty average for a UN group in how it is treated by others. It doesn't have the outright enemies of the NSO or the disrespect of the TPP, of which only the TPP is actually famous (but not for good reasons).

Which is my point. There is an expected ‘ignorance factor’ in NS. You've experienced this, too, DLE. You're very first RP in II got no responses. You once had a two post RP with you claiming sovereignty over a puppet and the puppet saying “I agree”. Your proposal that allegedly outlawed nuclear weapons in UN states was not the hottest topic on the forum. I've been ignored in things, too: each resolution-resulting telegram campaign, which had several hundreds of telegrams sent out, only got about 150 delegates responding and approving the legislation, the rest ignoring their telegrams. My first resolution The Nuclear Terrorism Act, had a really hard time getting attention. Just because something or someone is ignored--especially, as you say, in an "unspecial" or typical way--doesn't mean it isn't of worth, or is somehow requiring derision. Otherwise that would mean that you and I are not of worth--which I don't think either of us wants to believe.

And I don’t think I need to re-express my opinion that you're grossly misrepresenting TPP, which too, is an RP attempt from others to have some fun.

On the contrary, only a vocal minority have negative opinions about those two (of the many) UNA members. A large number of people ignoring the organization is to be expected as a large number of people have never heard of it, or are uninterested (a large number of people, about 6 billion, ignore Ma's sandwich shack, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have good ribs ;)).

The vocal aspect of that is why I am advising to dodge the politics or ask around first. But, mainly, the UNA is even ignored by most people who do know about it (unlike the TPP, which is openly derided and mocked). The reason is the same one as why I don't join it: Disinterest.

I must laugh about the derision of "the only two active members". I assume you mean Mik and I (as we’re the only two you seem interested in painting as vigilantes out to make the UN into “what it’s supposed to be about”).

Actually, my information about who is active in your group comes from one of the group's members. I don't honestly give enough of a damn about the UNA to bother checking it out.

And it’s obvious to anyone in the forum that your opinion of us and either of our opinions of you are colored by negative interactions we’ve all had.

My opinion of Mikitivity is colored by bad interactions, but it is an opinion that does allow for us to interact peacefully from time to time. My opinion of you is one that should be recorded in the Necronomicon as one of the great blasphemes that drove Hazrad insane. The interactions between Mikitivity and I are what happens when you have two strong-willed people jostling for the same niche, but between you and I there is a lot more than you are actually aware of yet. Plus, a lot of the forum regulars are wondering why you did not honor your promise of never posting on the UN forum again, with me being the only one with enough balls to take it directly to you (which, in and of itself, is the greatest irony). But whatever your reasons are, they are your reasons for a reason. Those of us who already suspect the answer have no reason to spread it about, though the suspected answer is not as uncomplimentary as one might think. After all, we all sometimes lose control of our emotions, so it's not really something to be ashamed of, and it helps us know what buttons can be pushed and by who.

How that makes your less-than-complimentary perception of us “truth” and our views of the UNA “advertisement” is really beyond me. And I should point out that some people mock/flame some of your thoughts or politics when advertised, too, DLE. They're just careful not to let you see it.

Yes, people do mock. And I make it a point to be aware of every ounce of mockery that happens. I don't bandy around the title "asshole" based on just my own experiences with my posts. I look at it this way: If they really want to say something about what I have said, they can grow a pair and come to me. Fate does not favor the coward in situations like this.

My less-than-complimentary perception of truth in this case left out my real opinions of the group. I spend a lot of my time looking beyond my own self-delusions and perceptions, and a lot of time investigating aspects of the items most don't bother with. While my statement isn't flattering, nor is it really insulting and nothing it included is false. Unless, of course, you are secretly trying to ruin the UN in revenge.

I really don’t see where you’re getting this “out to improve the UN” stuff. UNA action, that I’ve seen, is documentation and study of the UN, which will improve the understanding of the UN, but it isn’t meant as some crusade to “improve” the UN or make it into “what it’s supposed to be about”.

The great irony of that statement is that you stated exactly what I meant, didn't consider the consequences of improved understanding, and then called it false. If you really think improved understanding will have no effect on improving the UN, then you are quite mistaken.

Sometimes, it's better to ask than assume in these cases. You might be surprised by the answer.

I do have one question for you: Why is your group being stated as out to improve the UN a bad thing? Is it a case of you simply not liking the classification, or is there something more to it? Just as not all improvements are good things, not all improvements are bad things. Being out to improve something doesn't mean that what you are doing is actually bad, nor does it mean that it's good.

No, that’s a figment of your imagination. Since you only acknowledge two members of the UNA, let’s list publications they’ve had so far in the UNA: (1) A list of all the UN resolutions sorted by category, (2) a white paper, and (3) the beginning of a rhetorical analysis. (!) It’s pretty hard to make a list of the UN resolutions biased in some way (unless, of course, Mik has used his super-secret code to subliminally transmute his ideas on the UN to us through the format of that information presentation--spooky). (2) A white paper is supposed to express an opinion about a solution to a problem (which I advise you read Mik’s white paper before going off about it). (3) And rhetorical criticism is specifically designed not to pass judgment on the artifacts it examines. Saddam Hussein’s speech before the First Gulf War, about Iraq’s God-determined victory, is of just as much worth and merit to rhetorical criticism as Reagan’s Challenger Address (you know, “[they] ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’”).

Interesting, if somewhat worthless, challenge. If my goal were to challenge the UNA as a group, that challenge would be worthy.

That Mik and I have some sort of “elevation of the UN” agenda or are trying to improve the UN through the UNA is a load of hooka, and entirely from distortion by certain forum regulars who think it might discredit us (for goodness-know-what reasons).

If my goal were to discredit the UNA, I'd bring up past actions of the leading two members. It's infinitely easier to discredit a group by targetting the leaders. You make the mistake of thinking that I'm out to do damage to the group in some manner. Now, tell me if, at the end of the day, my statements on here actually make a difference. The UNA is not a group on my target list, more of an annoyance in its advertisement, and even as an annoyance it's not enough to actually get me to actually attempt to do something about it.

Keep in mind that not all statements when dealing with my enemies must be bad statements.

The UNA is an RP--voluntary--about the UN. It’s well within bounds of RP, and without the malicious underpinnings you aim to find in it. We just find it fun to RP academic and professional-style publications regarding the UN. If you don’t like this, ignore it.

"Malicious underpinnings." It's been awhile since I've used that phrase.

I haven't bothered to look for anything beneath the surface. For all of his faults, Mikitivity is too honest of a person in that regard to have some ulterior motive to the UNA or even allow such a motive to come into existance. And, yes, you can quote me on that.

If you go through the history of the UN forum, my only conflicts with the UNA result from it being advertised heavily, not from what it does. And the reason why amounts to inevitability, which is something I will not explain in this case for my own reasons.

Hardly. It is correct that papers and studies published by independent chapters of the UNA are not officially from the UN (just as the Sovereign Territory of the UN, which RPs as it being the whole of the UN is not officially from the UN). But the UNA is well made use of--by those that are interested in it.

It is too bad the forums don't reflect tone of voice. Nothing I stated in that post is false, as you have just admitted. But here's the problem you are missing: Certain items of the UNA that are utilized by its members are items you can easily pick up and utilize without the UNA, making those items not really an aspect of the UNA. The items that are aspects (such as the charts and graphs) are really pretty much ignored.

About the UNA's implied bias, a nuance you're conveniently overlooking is that the UNA is made up of chapters in the nations that are members. So, obviously, "the politics" (as you put it) will reflect the UNA member nations' thoughts and tendencies.

Implied bias? The only implied bias in my post can also be easily seen to be an item of pity, a reason to give the group a piece of slack.

Oh, and "the politics" wasn't referring to actions the group has taken.

If you want to "right the ship" from leaning a certain way or inject your ideas which you likely feel are more correct than ours, then you should join and make your own chapter and stop arbitrarily complaining because you don't like the players who use the UNA. As Vastiva says, a group or person who just says “no” all the time is full of rubbish.

Which would hasten the finale, only with said conflict in the wrong arena and with even worse possible results. If I honestly had a problem with the group, do you think I would have waited this long before saying anything?

Also, I'm not aware of the UNA's desperate need to search for members among newbies. Not only have I never seen especial advertisement to newbies (which is funny, because you advertise your ideas to newbies a lot, too), but Nationstates players ignoring things is a fact of the game.

Actually, I was reflecting on something I find to be a bad thing. What keeps groups alive is the occasional influx of new members and the removal of old members. What puts the UNA in a dangerous position is the fact the forum regulars, many of whom are members, really give the group no heed on the forum most of the time, with those of us who are not members having no particle reason or interest in joining. In order to avoid stagnation, the group must have an influx of new members, something that from all accounts I have is not happening. The UNA would not be the first group killed by this factor.

Yes, I do advertise to new members. But, I also advertise to older members, mods, people who never post on this forum, and people I recruit into the game before they even join.

It is shown through telegram campaigns, through the forum, through the fact that nations die. NS is a game, and the players have a finite amount time and attention to invest in the game’s much larger, near-infinite number of stimuli.

Which are boiled down by the average person to the following categories:

1. Nation
2. Roleplay
3. Chat
4. Alliances
5. UN
6. UN groups
7. Moderation
8. Technical

Note that 5 and 6 are often combined as one, as are 7 and 8.

Once boiled down, some people quickly get bored or disinterested in a category and look towards others. Or, they get bored with all of them and leave the game. But the fact they do this reduces the number of stimuli into a limited amount based solely on perception.

It is not an accurate or in any way meaningful measurement of a UN group's success, for DLE to pronounce how much DLE thinks it's ignored by the 130,000 nations that aren't members of it, aren’t interested in it, or aren’t even aware of it.

Did I call it unsuccessful? No? Didn't think so.

How loudly one speaks is not a good rubric for one’s influence, success, or absolute correctness. The UNA isn't here to be known by everyone and everything. It's set up so its members can have a little fun and a little RP in the frame of the UNA. Why you are so interested in attacking others having fun is beyond me.

Actually, if you bother to examine it, I wasn't attacking the UNA. I was just boiling it down to the truth of the matter so as to prevent a person from being fooled by an advertisement. That's part of why I advised that person to ask around. If they are really interested, do you honestly think my statements will stop them?

Keep in mind I know what it is like to be a newbie, even as far away as that was. To be sold on an advertisement that turned out to be hiding a few items is not that great for a person's self-esteem, and quite a few people let it get to them. Hell, I would have paid to have someone come along and warn a young me as to the truth of the group. It really wasn't a big deal, but I would rather have a person take the time to be informed than be sold by a simple advertisement.

Which is my point. There is an expected ‘ignorance factor’ in NS. You've experienced this, too, DLE. You're very first RP in II got no responses.

Nor did my second, fourth, or eighth. The few that did died.

You once had a two post RP with you claiming sovereignty over a puppet and the puppet saying “I agree”.

It wasn't my puppet originally. One of those rare cases of a person getting bored with NS and giving their nation away. In any case, there was quite a bit that happened on side forums that people to this day are still not aware of.

Your proposal that allegedly outlawed nuclear weapons in UN states was not the hottest topic on the forum.

Nor was it even submitted. I did it entirely to do one thing: Prove a point. Look at the conversation and tell me at what point people actually paid careful attention to the little inclusion of nuclear weapons.

I've been ignored in things, too: each resolution-resulting telegram campaign, which had several hundreds of telegrams sent out, only got about 150 delegates responding and approving the legislation, the rest ignoring their telegrams.

That's due in part to the flaw of the system: Some regions have codes about how to endorse a proposal. You have to investigate to see if they have one before sending the telegram. One example is 1 Infinite Loop, who requires that you post on their regional forums to ask and outright ignores telegrams.

My first resolution The Nuclear Terrorism Act, had a really hard time getting attention. Just because something or someone is ignored--especially, as you say, in an "unspecial" or typical way--doesn't mean it isn't of worth, or is somehow requiring derision. Otherwise that would mean that you and I are not of worth--which I don't think either of us wants to believe.

Nor did I say that it was. You make the mistake of assuming that was written with a hostile tone. Try reading it with a partially sad and morose tone. My wording could have probably used a bit of a working over, but that's because I was more concerned about other items at the time.

And I don’t think I need to re-express my opinion that you're grossly misrepresenting TPP, which too, is an RP attempt from others to have some fun.

The TPP is a group trying to do a good thing. As a group, it has earned disrespect and derision from UN members, has shown to the world that it cannot stand up against a powerful military force, has recently undergone internal stresses that caused one of the members to attempt undoing the group, and has been outright threatened with destruction if it interferes with certain nations. I would say I've represented it pretty accurately.

Now, shall we end this topic hijack?

My opinion of Mikitivity is colored by bad interactions, but it is an opinion that does allow for us to interact peacefully from time to time. My opinion of you is one that should be recorded in the Necronomicon as one of the great blasphemes that drove Hazrad insane. The interactions between Mikitivity and I are what happens when you have two strong-willed people jostling for the same niche, but between you and I there is a lot more than you are actually aware of yet. Plus, a lot of the forum regulars are wondering why you did not honor your promise of never posting on the UN forum again, with me being the only one with enough balls to take it directly to you (which, in and of itself, is the greatest irony). But whatever your reasons are, they are your reasons for a reason. Those of us who already suspect the answer have no reason to spread it about, though the suspected answer is not as uncomplimentary as one might think. After all, we all sometimes lose control of our emotions, so it's not really something to be ashamed of, and it helps us know what buttons can be pushed and by who.

But I didn't promise not to post in the UN forum ever again. Don't misrepresent me in that way or godmod knowledge of how much of your disdain for me I understand (by asserting that "there is a lot more than actually aware of"). In the post you're referring to, I was responding to Tuesday Heights's suggestion of ignoring you. I said I refuse to do so and that I'd stop posting in the UN forum because of the degredation of the forum's quality at that time. But the problem wasn't just you. There were flames and childish personal attacks being perpetrated long beyond just you. I said I would stop posting in the UN forum to avoid that. And I did. As the situation cooled and you got your hard warning to back off, I began to post again. I said I'd stop at that point in time. I didn't say I'd never post again.

Somehow, though, I'm pretty sure you weren't so grossly uninformed about my hiatus--or even my hiatus commencement post--to really think I had promised not to post...

Yes, people do mock. And I make it a point to be aware of every ounce of mockery that happens.
Not only do I personally know that isn't true, it can't be true. Yes, maybe you try to keep track, even doggedly, of criticism of you. But declaring that you've caught it all is a disservice to you, because you're dismissing every piece of criticism you haven't caught. You can't just godmod the conclusion "I know every ounce of criticism against me" when all you're really justified in saying is "I try to find criticism against me".

My less-than-complimentary perception of truth in this case left out my real opinions of the group. I spend a lot of my time looking beyond my own self-delusions and perceptions, and a lot of time investigating aspects of the items most don't bother with. While my statement isn't flattering, nor is it really insulting and nothing it included is false. Unless, of course, you are secretly trying to ruin the UN in revenge.
The question is not of truthfulness and falseness, it's representation. A speaker encompasses a situation a certain way, and that encompassing or representation of the situation determines the message sent to the audience. What I'm saying is that your representation of the situation is no much more valid than mine. In fact, I have serious issues with your representation of the UNA.

I do have one question for you: Why is your group being stated as out to improve the UN a bad thing? Is it a case of you simply not liking the classification, or is there something more to it? Just as not all improvements are good things, not all improvements are bad things. Being out to improve something doesn't mean that what you are doing is actually bad, nor does it mean that it's good.

Because the UNA isn’t out to improve the UN. The UNA is not attempting to force its idea of a better UN on everyone else: the UNA, as a group, realize our points of view of 'good' and 'bad' UN are relative. Perhaps study and observation of the UN will improve it, but that would be a side-effect of the UNA, not its primary, intended effect. Perhaps. Perhaps, a member of the UNA will at some point (or has or is currently) attempt to "improve the UN" in a certain way. But the actions of nations which have UNA chapters =/= to actions of the UNA.

Actually, I was reflecting on something I find to be a bad thing. What keeps groups alive is the occasional influx of new members and the removal of old members. What puts the UNA in a dangerous position is the fact the forum regulars, many of whom are members, really give the group no heed on the forum most of the time, with those of us who are not members having no particle reason or interest in joining. In order to avoid stagnation, the group must have an influx of new members, something that from all accounts I have is not happening. The UNA would not be the first group killed by this factor.
Such is the problem with curling, too. Curling gets not-that-much attention in some areas of the world and has the possibility of dying out in those areas; it needs new members to replace the old--the cycling of members you speak of. However, how popular curling is among the world (or, by extension how popular the UNA is among members) is entirely irrelevant to the fun curlers have while playing, the absolute quality of the curling game, or how likely it is a curler will have a bloody list of delegate votes on the Chemical Ban resolution.

That's what makes me interpret your post as negative. If it were as neutral as you say, I don't believe it would create the hierarchy of my "advertisement" as under your "truth". And it wouldn't pull up irrelevant facts to make the point that people have different opinions about the UNA. It appeared to me that you searched for something negative to say about the UNA, even though it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion on what the UNA is or how likely a member has a Chemical Weapon Ban delegate vote list.

It's like a 2004 Bush campaigner talking about Kerry's wife and her barbedness instead of about the issues. Kerry's wife and any dis-temperament she may have are entirely irrelevant to issues facing the presidential candidates. But it's negative. And as such, the Bush campaigner uses it. That's how I interpreted your revelation that the UNA isn't talked about everyday in the forums: a reach to find something negative to say about the UNA, just because it’s negative, not because it has bearing on the discussion.


Actually, if you bother to examine it, I wasn't attacking the UNA. I was just boiling it down to the truth of the matter so as to prevent a person from being fooled by an advertisement.

You were misrepresenting it. You emphasized that it was ignored, which is easily interpreted as a negative aspect of a group. It being ignored or 'the best thing since sliced bread' is irrelevant and you know that.

That's due in part to the flaw of the system: Some regions have codes about how to endorse a proposal. You have to investigate to see if they have one before sending the telegram. One example is 1 Infinite Loop, who requires that you post on their regional forums to ask and outright ignores telegrams.
Just a point of order (it’s a pretty unimportant point with regard to the whole subject), regional rules about proposal endorsement is not why easily 95% of un-responded to telegrams are left unanswered or unmet with an approval. It's apathy. As a delegate for a period myself, I can tell you how easy it is to read a telegram from a proposal author and then say "Ooh, pizza". And having been in many regions in my time, I can also tell you that many, many of the smaller regions do not have complex regional governments—which is a prerequisite for such a government gummy-ing up telegram campaigns. Apathy, not technicalities in hundreds of regional proposal approving rules at once, causes the difficulty of telegram campaigns.

The TPP is a group trying to do a good thing. As a group, it has earned disrespect and derision from UN members, has shown to the world that it cannot stand up against a powerful military force, has recently undergone internal stresses that caused one of the members to attempt undoing the group, and has been outright threatened with destruction if it interferes with certain nations. I would say I've represented it pretty accurately.

Once again, it is not a matter of how truthful your statements are (even though you do exaggerate in some of these TPP representations). It's a matter of the selection of what you choose to represent: negative aspects. It's somewhat akin to yellow journalism: the scandalizing of non-scandal. For example I can represent you (as it's all reasonably truthful) as Warned for personally attacking me, An RPer who gets entirely ignored A nation who gives advice on proposals without ever having passed a resolution itself Someone who is admittedly "egotistical" and 'nasty to other players' A killjoy for joke proposals A godmodder
[i]However, this is an unfair representation because it misses the good points you have and mitigating or complicating factors about you: such as the fact that you have been in highly successful and replied to RPs, and that you have been endearing to downtrodden members and inspiring to new forum-goers/proposal authors, that you most strictly keep godmodding to joking around, and that you have posted your own joke proposals and the like, and so on and so forth.

My point is that just because the parts of a representation are truthful/accurate in some way, doesn't mean it's overall conclusion (or in this case, the implied conclusion) is in anyway accurate or meaningful. Your representations of TPP (minus the one I'm quoting--in which you acknowledge a lot of the omitted facts about TPP) tends to omit or glaze over successes TPP has had, and that the group is exploring totally unknown ground (UN committee RP) as well as other non-negative aspects of TPP. That's what I have/had issues with. And I have issues with your representation of the UNA as something (worthless? unpopular? I'm really not sure) because it's not the topic of discussion in the UN forum much, and has only two moderately active members, whose politics you als appear attempting to discredit. Which you and I both know to be irrelevant to the group being of worth or having the delegate list Axinon's looking for.

Okay, DLE and PC, I'm sure everyone understands your respective points of view. Continually brow-beating each other isn't going to change anything. So just calm down, relax, and end the topic hijack.

Two things:

1. The topic with my warning: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424069

The topic with PC's leaving of the UN: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422132

Anyone interested in this can make up their own damned minds.

2. I asked once for an end to the hijack. I ask for it again.

On topic:

Personally, I think that the two involved in this should combine their efforts into one repeal attempt, just to cover all bases.