NationStates Jolt Archive

The discussions on alternative energy sources has inspired me with a new resolution idea, that will actually put a different point of view on a NationStates daily issue. I do not foresee any game mechanics violations with my idea (I'm being vague, because I want IDU members to have first shot at helping me here ... though you can visit my region's forum to participate in the first draft process). I do see my idea being an "Environmental" category, which is sadly a huge albatross.

My question to this body is do you prefer NS UN resolutions that have a very focused solution and approach or resolutions that offer multiple solutions to a larger problem?

In this case, I can focus on indentifying a very specific environmental problem for which there currently is one good alternative / management practice. However, the debate and focus of something this specific will probably result in questions about other issues -- which could be dealt with in future resolutions.

In the past, the IDU dealt with this issue by focusing on the specific first, in order to start a focused debate (tsunami warning systems) and later brought a more general resolution to the UN in order to address the tangents to that debate. This seemed to work well, but I'd like to run a poll and see how your governments feel about this approach.

Why are there two of these?

To fix a poll.

To fix a poll.

Right, it was my mistake ... I meant to make the results public in case anybody wanted to run a similar poll in the future (say in 2006). Thanks for the lock.

I've asked that the old thread be deleted, but before that can be done, people whom posted or voted there might want to copy their comments from there to here. :)

I had attempted to repost my other post here before I got hit with a database error for a few minutes.

To be honest, I care more about the topic itself than how general or focused it is. So my answer would have to be...

~Flips a coin, with heads being "both" and tails being "invent a new word." The coin lands on "invent a new word"~

Focuneral.

I prefer focused resolutions. If anybody has ever read a real life United Nations resolution, you see just how much focus plays a part in drafting legislature internationally. I do believe if more UN proposals here were more focused, you'd find a generally higher quality of resolutions overall.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have noticed that it is far easier to bring to quorum any proposal which

1) most members think they know something about, and
2) most members think makes them look good, and
3) most members think is a nice thing to do, and
3) most members think looks like a wide enough cause.

regardless of actual content. This favours focused resolutions on pressure points such as homosexuality vs such points as tobacco use (over-focussed), as well as large and general causes like 'world peace' (which in this context do not apply as expected because the NSUN is not a universal organisation). The problem lies in comprehensibility. Few read the fine print before voting, and of those who do, a number seem to ignore textual errors which make mockery of the resolution subsequently passed.

Hence it is our opinion that at the very least, those proposing resolutions should make their meaning clear and their text error-free. Resolutions with spelling errors should be struck down immediately or corrected before being allowed to proceed. It is silly for this august assembly to be voting on documents which have not been vetted for errors in the basic elements. Discussion should only proceed when a text for that discussion contains proper words and sentences made from those words.

A lost cause, but one worth venting over from time to time, we think.

The discussions on alternative energy sources has inspired me with a new resolution idea.
I visited the IDU forum and looked at it. In this case, a focused approach is probably best. I like the idea.

OOC: In terms of my OOC position, I feel that most resolutions are better off being fairly general so that there's more of a variety of options for roleplaying compliance.

IC:

I prefer that resolutions be fairly general so that nations can decide for themselves how to implement them most effectively.

To focus on a single issue say GAY RIGHTS... would offend many just on the Title alone with out looking to see the content of the proposal.. Example.... content may say they have same rights under law as married couples but does not say they can themselves be married just that when they live together they shall have the rights granted to those considered married... To focus on them getting married would offend another group who strongly agree with marriage being between man and woman... adding more as you focus that you offend.. A solution would be to focus on all people/citizens have those rights under laws as say a family unity.. not married couple or gay couple. Then clearly define:
1) 'family unity' -- IE: "one or more person living together sharing living cost, shelter, and others...
2) 'citizen' -- IE: "a productive member of a society who by virtue of his contributions to that society has rights"..
3) Society 'being any national or regional government... of people'..
Do not try to say family is a 'man, woman, and their children' -- 'citizen' is any 'single white male between 20 and 34 years old has all his teeth and most of his hair..' this singles out certain individuals.. thus discriminates against those outsdie the selected group.... This is both by UN past resolutions illegal also by national laws extablished by these past resolutions illegal... so you not only violate UN laws but your own national laws as you comply with laws banning discrimination... See repeal of UN Resolution #12.... Gay Rights.. then repeal of UN Resolution #14 Child Rights.. currently up for endorsements.. Also take a look at those two resolutions form structure wise feel they are good examples of proper proposals.. just have trouble with issues in them... so have chosen to repeal them... on those groulds...

You Know mikitivity as of this moment i just am not arsed :(
will try to be arsed later!