NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello!
This poll is to find out how people feel about the UN in NS. I know most people aren't in the UN, but they can still vote on this poll. (Mainly because I have no way of stopping them. Curse the fates.) This is the first poll I've posted, so I really really hope it goes well and actually works.

Well, it seemed to have worked. I'm the only one who's noticed the thread so far, but it seems... worky.

Oh, yeah, and if anyone actually comes, post your reasons for what you voted for.

Woohoo! Someone else actually voted! Not that he (or she) actually posted anything...

Vote: needs to be made better
Reason: people need to actually put some effort into being part of the UN. It seems most proposals are mediocre at best (quality of writing, not their intentions) and that most votes do not reflect a careful reading of this resolution at hand.

I've been around a fair while here, and believe that the NSUN is fine the way it is. A tad too legalistic in cases, but not enough to require change.

what happened when UN memeber dont follow through the resolution?

what happened when UN memeber dont follow through the resolution?
Short answer: they can't.

Long answer: While it is possible to role-play a nation going against a resolution, few people choose to do so. It is easier to just say your nation is obeying UN law. Also, you can be accused of god-modding if you flagrantly ignore UN resolutions while role-playing (but only if your nation is in the UN, of course).

what happened when UN memeber dont follow through the resolution?

Enn is pretty much correct, in that nations can roleplay non-compliance, but if a nation makes a reputation for ignoring all UN resolutions, it really begs the question "why they hell are they in the UN in the first place" and thus most other nations consider them godmoders and just ignore them.

If you want to not comply with a UN resolution, my advice is to do two things: limit it to a single resolution and also find a very specific reason for stating a STRONG objection to a resolution.

Comments like, "this violates national sovereignty" are frankly STUPID. FACT: all UN resolutions violate national sovereignty (just to different degrees). Nobody makes a big fight over something without at least explaining why they are fighting that issue while supporting other (and often smiliar) resolutions elsewhere.

To pick on one of my own resolutions, if you wanted to make a believable roleplayed non-compliance, I would think refusing to adhere to the Ballast Water resolution might be interesting. Claim that your nation has a large shipping fleet and it has a reputation for fast service, and then claim that the resolution has incurred a significant loss of revenue ...

If you want to step things up, create a puppet and have your two nations get into a conflict, where your UN nation sends in a ship that hasn't cycled its tanks into the other nation. Then have your puppet claim that a UN member has violated UN regulations and ask for UN help.

Though, since your puppet isn't another UN members, many UN states can't do much, it is possible to at least make the issue interesting enough that many UN members like myself would *read* the threads.

Please keep in mind that these sorts of threads are better sent to the International Incidents forum, but it *might* be OK to link to them here and ask UN members to pay attention.

The point isn't to attack a resolution, you can do that via a repeal, but to have some fun with a story. :)

Abortion rights is even easier ... claim your nation now has cases of parents killing children before they are born based on their gender. Write a few "newspaper" articles talking about how your nation is happy with some UN laws, but this one you can't follow. No need to even puppet wank, but it could still prove an effect international statement.

There are some 113 +/- resolutions now, and I think if you don't call a resolution stupid, but just make it sound like your society has a few serious objects to *one or two*, that people will generally find that interesting. :)

Eh.

The more time honored tradition is to find loopholes.

Eh.

The more time honored tradition is to find loopholes.

Instead of time honored, I think it is far better to describe many options as being more practiced.

Godmoding, playing the "el generico national sovereignty card" and threatening to storm out of the UN, techwanking, and publically announcing an intention to exploit a loophole are certainly much more frequently practiced than actually roleplaying compliance or non-compliance ...

And it goes without say, after the game stats are altered very few players really pay much attention to UN resolutions ... for example, there are a number of UN resolutions that are directly in opposition of a few daily issues. How many of you pick daily issues to stay in compliance with UN resolutions? I certainly don't.

However, the threads that come from things like Joccia's Prostitutes Roleplay or Sophista's "Banning Whaling" non-compliance are really the events that are worthy of note. Joccia combined using loopholes with an actual story / roleplay that was active here and in the international incidents forum (pre-Jolt). Sophista's roleplay including Frisbeeteria and the Texan Hotrodders (or was it Hotroddia at the time), all who were active in the UN at the time.

Plenty of options.

I wish the Un would be more bold on issues.


I would like to see Delegates to chance more often. Maybe term limits or something like that.

I wish the Un would be more bold on issues.
More bold? We've legalised gay marriage, abortion, prostitution and euthanasia, we've banned whaling and ensured that nations can keep their nukes, we've even given clones full human rights. How much bolder do you want the UN to be?
I would like to see Delegates to chance more often. Maybe term limits or something like that.
If you want a change in delegacy, you have to use your endorsement carefully. You may have to campaign for a change of delegacy. But there is no possible method to introduce term limits into the game short of a full re-write of the endorsement code. (Some regions have organised things along the lines of what you are saying, but that is up to the members of the region, not the dictates of the game).

the UN adopted a motion to support same sex marriages? :)

Around two years ago, yes. See "Gay Rights" for the first time it was legalized.

Thats really cool to hear. I hope no one repels it! :mad:

I am glad theres so many socially progressive people on here. =D

Thats really cool to hear. I hope no one repels it! :mad:

I am glad theres so many socially progressive people on here. =D
It's good to see a recent arrival is so positive of what the UN has done so far - normally we see recent arrivals trying to overhaul everything overnight.

Personally I quite like the UN - I'd like more intervention by the silent minority on here, and I think we could do with more quality resolutions rather than quantity, but otherwise it's pretty good.

the UN adopted a motion to support same sex marriages? :)
And not just once - Check the Gay Rights and Definition of Marriage resolutions.

Vote: needs to be made better
Reason: people need to actually put some effort into being part of the UN. It seems most proposals are mediocre at best (quality of writing, not their intentions) and that most votes do not reflect a careful reading of this resolution at hand.


I've looked over a lot of proposals since joining NationState... First thing I consider is who may be writing that proposal.. As not all of use in here are old folks or American or English.. I know the language of the site is English but we have to give credit to those from other places that are trying through this site to learn English.. As a side I try to write poetry and on line find many reasons folks make spell errors or what they write is not perfect English.. but they are trying.. remember the UN even in NationStates is made up of many nations that there first language is not the same as your national language but through the UN they are trying to speak write and even read your efforts..... to propose something.. Also to them something simple may be a big issue..... Like being able to watch color TV not BW.. so what's to say they don't propose the UN ban BW TV... to them it's a major issue... maybe not one all feel is.. but this is role play.. with all types of people even space beings in here...

I've looked over a lot of proposals since joining NationState... First thing I consider is who may be writing that proposal.. As not all of use in here are old folks or American or English.. I know the language of the site is English but we have to give credit to those from other places that are trying through this site to learn English.. As a side I try to write poetry and on line find many reasons folks make spell errors or what they write is not perfect English.. but they are trying.. remember the UN even in NationStates is made up of many nations that there first language is not the same as your national language but through the UN they are trying to speak write and even read your efforts..... to propose something.. Also to them something simple may be a big issue..... Like being able to watch color TV not BW.. so what's to say they don't propose the UN ban BW TV... to them it's a major issue... maybe not one all feel is.. but this is role play.. with all types of people even space beings in here...
Aside from the overzealous use of ellipses, this would be a good point in an ideal world.

Unfortunately, this isn't that, and the appearance can matter as much as, or even more than, the concept behind the proposal. In many ways, passing a proposal is like a popularity contest - it's easier to be popular if you are handsome/beautiful.

When the real UN accepts a resolution, there are many members who don't apply the resolution to their national laws, and that's no problem.

Others do, but it only becomes a piece of paper, with no result at all.
The 3 resolutions about Tibet have never been followed up by China or any other nation, on several occasions Israel or Arab States didn't follow up on certain resolutions, and how many nations who signed agreements about Nuclear Arms, Biological Arms, Whaling, or other issues, simply dismissed them and did the opposite?

The UN in the Nation States should be that realistic.

The UN in the Nation States should be that realistic.
So nothing ever gets done?

I like it the way it is, although it's got a bit more anal since the old days. And I'm not happy with the onetime illegal proposals making it to resolutions.

The UN only needs one major fix to help it out.

The one problem befalling the UN is how it handles proposals to rewrite provious resolutions.

As it stands now, the only way to accomplish this is to repeal the old resolution and pray to your deity that the new one passes. If there were a better way to handle this, then the UN would be near-perfect. Unfortunately there is little in the way that can be done other then try to educate those who wish to rewrite a proposal in their own words to carefully consider the aftermath of these actions.

As nations who have come on here and blathered bigotries have attested, there are those out there who would torture their citizenry cruelly for their beliefs, or minority status. THere are nations who wish to repeal many different resolutions in order to combine them into one overarching resolution. The problem with this is that with one swift repeal, the protections of multiple resolutions are suddenly felled with one repeal.THAT is what disturbs us the most.

I think the UN could be better.

1. The proposal categories are rather limited, sometimes for game mechanics reasons and other times just because no one originally thought up every possible category, which is understandable. Perfect foresight is rare, after all, and I can't reasonably expect it of people.

2. The UN has no charter or mission statement, and I would like one, though I doubt that Max and I would see eye-to-eye on what that charter would be anyway, so maybe that's for the best.

3. The membership of the UN is largely uninformed and unqualified to write UN legislation, but that's for valid real-life reasons in most cases, and I can't really blame folks for not wanting to spend a good chunk of their time learning how the NSUN works and solidifying their views on it.

1. The proposal categories are rather limited, sometimes for game mechanics reasons and other times just because no one originally thought up every possible category, which is understandable. Perfect foresight is rare, after all, and I can't reasonably expect it of people.


I'd like to see a few new categories:

Education
Humanitarian Aid
Environmental -- Fisheries
Agriculture

The problem is the UN in the game was actually not designed the way it is here. Categories like Gun Control and Recretational Drugs are pretty big hints that it was simply a "global" daily issue.

And I honestly think that is why we see some players obsessed with their game stats. They are more interested in the top bar than looking through the *text* of the daily issues or the *text* of resolutions.

Fris or Cog once was trying to get us to dream up what the pluses and minuses of new categories would be. Environmental -- Fisheries could work two ways: they could cost commerical fisheries by protecting things like whales, or they could improve the environment. I'd do both with the passage.

For what I'm doing with the salmon, that actually is more of a hidden agriculture bill. I'm trying to not regulate salmon fishing (because that is really covered kinda via the Whales and Dolphins ... in other words, I hate repeating debates), but *nobody* has talked about water quality in international rivers. If I had the power of a game administrator / programmer, I'd create a category that increases various Agricultural sectors. Where the environmental category improves our environments at the expense of industry, I would see Ag resolutions as improving Ag related industries at the expense of other social programs or simply larger government.

You want more fish in the rivers, some kid isn't going to get a new school book or taxes are going to go up.

In the RL UN, there is a UN FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). Adam Island tried in October to talk the moderators into making this change, so that we could do more with Ag, but nothing has happened. (Lack of interest or RL interests just taking a priority, I don't know ... and I do understand.)




2. The UN has no charter or mission statement, and I would like one, though I doubt that Max and I would see eye-to-eye on what that charter would be anyway, so maybe that's for the best.



I wouldn't mind if Fris and Hack worked together over the next year to just put one up for us. :)


3. The membership of the UN is largely uninformed and unqualified to write UN legislation, but that's for valid real-life reasons in most cases, and I can't really blame folks for not wanting to spend a good chunk of their time learning how the NSUN works and solidifying their views on it.

It should be common knowledge that I have no sympathy for people that whine when something is "too hard to read". While there are plenty of things I find too hard to read, I generally keep that opinion to myself -- because it is nobody's fault but my own if I have something else interesting to preoccupy my time.

It isn't the resolutions that bother me. Few of them make it to the queue after the first go around.

If I see something that (1) I don't like, and (2) think I'd change, I'm not shy about submitting an amendment. Naturally if the author accepts the change, I'm very inclined to vote in favour (and maybe campaign for their idea).

What bothers me is how people still seem to focus on the game stats issue and the formatting of text.

It seems to me that if you want to play the UN game, that language and details are as much a part of the game as choosing your daily issues. NationStates has some many other things going on that are pretty fun. The few II roleplays I've participated in are great.

And many a time stat/tech/puppet wank has really turned me off of the NSUN forum experience (not the UN, I back it 100% ... but the forum). Lately I've found creating an imaginary world in NSWiki to be pretty fun.

I hope to catch Goober or Fris with some more NSWiki questions soon, and then I'll start really archiving more of what goes on here in the UN. The down side, is I honestly will admit that I'm not thrilled about documenting the one-billionth "but the resolution is too long for me!" complaint, so whatever I'll pin down will focus on debates related to resolution text, and in the case of historically important debates like those on your resolution, I'm going to have to find a way to fairly present both sides POVs. (And that will be fun!) :)

I'd like to see a few new categories:

Education
Humanitarian Aid
Environmental -- Fisheries
Agriculture

The problem is the UN in the game was actually not designed the way it is here. Categories like Gun Control and Recretational Drugs are pretty big hints that it was simply a "global" daily issue.

Heh. I would like to see other additions to the Environmental category, the Agriculture category you suggested, and a Fair Trade category. The Humanitarian Aid thing would be really cool, but I suspect there's some game mechanics limitations that will ensure that we'll never see it. :(

And I honestly think that is why we see some players obsessed with their game stats. They are more interested in the top bar than looking through the *text* of the daily issues or the *text* of resolutions.

*shrug* For some people UN membership and daily issues are all about the stats and rankings, which is one way to play the game. For others UN membership is all about the invading/defending gameplay, and that's another way to play the game. For others UN membership is about the legislation and/or roleplay, and that's yet another way to play the game. For most of us I think it's some form of a combination of those. I'm not inclined to cast aspersions on how people choose to play the game, even though I might not agree with their method of playing.

I wouldn't mind if Fris and Hack worked together over the next year to just put one up for us. :)

Neither would I. Having the Mods do what I want is always nice. :D

I hope to catch Goober or Fris with some more NSWiki questions soon, and then I'll start really archiving more of what goes on here in the UN. The down side, is I honestly will admit that I'm not thrilled about documenting the one-billionth "but the resolution is too long for me!" complaint, so whatever I'll pin down will focus on debates related to resolution text, and in the case of historically important debates like those on your resolution, I'm going to have to find a way to fairly present both sides POVs. (And that will be fun!) :)

*sigh* That reminds me of my own rather long list of things to do on the NSwiki. While I enjoy developing my nations, it gets rather tedious after a while.

The UN only needs one major fix to help it out.

The one problem befalling the UN is how it handles proposals to rewrite provious resolutions.

As it stands now, the only way to accomplish this is to repeal the old resolution and pray to your deity that the new one passes. If there were a better way to handle this, then the UN would be near-perfect. Unfortunately there is little in the way that can be done other then try to educate those who wish to rewrite a proposal in their own words to carefully consider the aftermath of these actions.

As nations who have come on here and blathered bigotries have attested, there are those out there who would torture their citizenry cruelly for their beliefs, or minority status. THere are nations who wish to repeal many different resolutions in order to combine them into one overarching resolution. The problem with this is that with one swift repeal, the protections of multiple resolutions are suddenly felled with one repeal.THAT is what disturbs us the most.


I voted "needs change" for the reason above.

D@mn you, Snoogit, for posting before me!

I'm not inclined to cast aspersions on how people choose to play the game, even though I might not agree with their method of playing.

Statwanking is fine. The problem is when debates about statwanking cross over in thread hijack substanstive debates about resolutions.

Remember those "How Likely Are you to support a Human Rights resolution?" surveys I ran in Nov/Dec 2004 and later in Apr/May 2005?

Here is the paper that came from the first:
http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/una-200501.pdf

Those threads were directly related to debates on *generalizations*. Statwanking is basically a word used to describe players that focus on making their decisions based upon their assumptions of the game stat impacts of any daily issue and/or UN resolution.

I would even say the ol' "I'm storming out of the UN, because these treehuggers are just too hippie like for me" posts are fine when they are in their own threads. But I personally get annoyed when these generalizations are *all* that we see. Great, you have a prejudiced against Moral Decency resolutions ... guess what, I tend to view them with a careful / weary eye too ... but I'm not going to jump on a soap box when a Moral Decency resolution pops up and only talk about game stats and some mysterious House of Cards.


*sigh* That reminds me of my own rather long list of things to do on the NSwiki. While I enjoy developing my nations, it gets rather tedious after a while.

Well, it would be possible for your puppets to be Wikified as being diplomatic missions or corporations. :) Take a certain puppet that you've made public: Turbo Diesel. What if Turbo Diesel were written up in Wiki as an international corporation instead of a nation? Claim that it has officies world wide, with many in the IDU (since that is where it is sitting ... heck, I'd love for it to have a branch office in Miervatia City).

I've started Wikifying my cantons. Aslan, Valitz, Miervatia ... and I'll dream up a few more. I also hope to start making more breweries. :)

the UN adopted a motion to support same sex marriages? :)
yes, many times

I think the UN should just ensure basic human rights like freedom of expression, and religion, and ensure ethnic and gender equality. When they legalize abortion, gay marriage, and prostitution, that goes too far.

Also, some resolutions are unrealistic, like "Keep the World Disaster Free".

The UN also needs to realize that rouge nations don't have to follow the resolutions. So, when we ban certain types of weapons, we make our nations extremely vulerable.

Another purpose of the UN is to deal with environmental issues, because we share the air and the sea.

I think the UN should just ensure basic human rights like freedom of expression, and religion, and ensure ethnic and gender equality. When they legalize abortion, gay marriage, and prostitution, that goes too far.

Also, some resolutions are unrealistic, like "Keep the World Disaster Free".
But there's the rub. I regard prostitution as being part of the right to control over your own body. Abortion is similar, but more complicated. And Gay Marriage is something I personally regard as being important.

Oh, and it's "Keep the World Disease Free".

The UN seems ok to me, could be improved though. More options would be useful.

Rich

New categories are still on the back burner as both Admins are very busy. We haven't forgotten, just... haven't been able to do it yet.

New categories are still on the back burner as both Admins are very busy. We haven't forgotten, just... haven't been able to do it yet.

Can we (UN forum members) be of any help brainstorming?

I was thinking we could make a long list, and then vote on our priorities, to hand to the mods to then hash out.

The problem is, some categories, like Human Rights, seem to be only positives, though there has been enough said that there *is* a cost, we just don't see it. Not knowing what the cost is, it is hard to structure similar drawbacks for some categories.

Also another suggestion I have is on you and Fris ... you see what sorts of proposals are not fitting well into existing categories, maybe you'll have a better idea at new categories that would give you fewer chances to delete proposals.

As I recall, we have a list and what each level in each category will do (ie: Human Rights: Mild has different effects than Human Rights: Strong), it's just a matter of actually coding it and putting it in the game.

As I recall, we have a list and what each level in each category will do (ie: Human Rights: Mild has different effects than Human Rights: Strong), it's just a matter of actually coding it and putting it in the game.

Cogs mentioned that (not the list, but the relationship between resolution strength, a nation's game stats, and impacts), but given that we players don't have that list, is it still help for us to make just a crazy Christmas list of sorts?

Well, I don't know if it would accomplish much. Like I said, we hashed out the stats for the new set, and if we were to go about changing them again... well... do you really want to slow down our already glacieral pace? :p

That being said, it couldn't really hurt anything, I just can't promise that any of them would be included (unless they're already on our list, 'natch).

more categories..


and if you are pushing more human rights..thats fine
but what if you are taking away human rights?...

"Moral Decency"

and if you are pushing more human rights..thats fine
but what if you are taking away human rights?...
Strangely, my preliminary rhetorical criticism of "Human Rights" proposals is that they are often taking away just as many or more human rights as are Moral Decency resolutions. It's, you might say, more a matter of "where the stress is placed in the sentence".

and is there even the silghtlest chance in the future that we can make resolution that affects individual nation only?


like...a trade sanction against a certain barbaric nation..

i know this would require reformatting the game..but is it possible? are we willing to charge player for..like 5 dollar a month? would it be okay?

And also, I think that some U.N delegates should not be delegates, alot of their accounts havent been active in months. Its not fair to those who are seeking for their proposals to be approved by U.N delegates who are not even committed to this game.

That said, most U.N delegates are great and committed people.

just my 2 cents.

and is there even the silghtlest chance in the future that we can make resolution that affects individual nation only?


like...a trade sanction against a certain barbaric nation..

i know this would require reformatting the game..but is it possible? are we willing to charge player for..like 5 dollar a month? would it be okay?
Won't happen in NS. Possibly in NS2.

And also, I think that some U.N delegates should not be delegates, alot of their accounts havent been active in months. Its not fair to those who are seeking for their proposals to be approved by U.N delegates who are not even committed to this game.
The problem being that delegacy is not only aboutproposals and resolutions, but is also a major part of the invasion game. A large number of UN nations are only in the UN in order to take part in invasions and defense. If they were able to do so independently of the UN, they would leave without a second thought. And since invasions have been around as long as the game itself, they're not about to be phased out.

That said, most U.N delegates are great and committed people.

just my 2 cents.
Why thank you. We do try.

Thank you for answering my question, do you know when NS2 will come out? Would it still be free?

I think this game is very fun and also useful. You get to develop your own opinons and become more knowledgable about issues, I like to think that i am not wasting my time on nationstates. I study political science after all. ;)

Thank you for answering my question, do you know when NS2 will come out? Would it still be free?

I think this game is very fun and also useful. You get to develop your own opinons and become more knowledgable about issues, I like to think that i am not wasting my time on nationstates. I study political science after all. ;)
No idea when NS2 is coming out, there's been rumours about it for years. I believe that it will be a paying game, but I'm not sure. Check the NS2 forum for details, I'm just working off a vague memory of the last time I went there myself.

Strangely, my preliminary rhetorical criticism of "Human Rights" proposals is that they are often taking away just as many or more human rights as are Moral Decency resolutions. It's, you might say, more a matter of "where the stress is placed in the sentence".

That is because there is some truth to the ol' saying, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

I think Affirmative Action is often cited as the example of one form of civil liberty being safe guarded by actually taking away another civil liberty. This isn't to say that I don't support it ... I do in many cases, and in some cases don't.

More bold? We've legalised gay marriage, abortion, prostitution and euthanasia, we've banned whaling and ensured that nations can keep their nukes, we've even given clones full human rights. How much bolder do you want the UN to be?

Yes, there's a good record in Social Justice. But like you just demonstrated, it's very lopsided.

You pass a Hydrogen Power resolution and then call that Environmentalism?

If you want a change in delegacy, you have to use your endorsement carefully. You may have to campaign for a change of delegacy. But there is no possible method to introduce term limits into the game short of a full re-write of the endorsement code. (Some regions have organised things along the lines of what you are saying, but that is up to the members of the region, not the dictates of the game).

No campaigning to unseat anyone. If I wanted to be a delegate that bad I would just start my own Region and find supporters.

What I'm talking about is "intrenched" delegacy...hence the concentrated number of resolutions from the same category.

Terms limits would help democratizes the Delegate processes.

For example, why isn't there an Endangered Species Act?


Because like great Technocrats, we're regulating them Species by Species.


Why isn't there a ban on illegal Ivory? Or a ban on fur? What? Baby Harp Seals are not as cute as they use to be?


What about wind farms?

An International Transit Security system?

What about an International Space station on the moon?


You know...Bold.

Yes, there's a good record in Social Justice. But like you just demonstrated, it's very lopsided.
You asked for the UN to be bold. I don't see how any of those I mentioned could be possible classed as anything other than bold steps.

You pass a Hydrogen Power resolution and then call that Environmentalism?
I didn't. I hate that resolution, personally. But there's a heck of a lot more that the UN's done in terms of environmentalism. Have a read through the passed resolutions list.



No campaigning to unseat anyone. If I wanted to be a delegate that bad I would just start my own Region and find supporters.

What I'm talking about is "intrenched" delegacy...hence the concentrated number of resolutions from the same category.

Terms limits would help democratizes the Delegate processes.
How can I say it? Howe many more times does it need to be said?
There is no way your idea can work within the mechanics of the game.

For example, why isn't there an Endangered Species Act?
I don't know. Why don't you write one?


Because like great Technocrats, we're regulating them Species by Species.


Why isn't there a ban on illegal Ivory? Or a ban on fur? What? Baby Harp Seals are not as cute as they use to be?
Steady on there. The UN moves at a glacial pace. Resolutions occur when someone wantys to get something done. Sometimes that is a bold step, such as how gay marriage has been legalised, twice. Other times it's expanding on a previous resolution.
I've never heard of Harp Seals myself, so I don't know how cute they are meant to be.

What about wind farms?

An International Transit Security system?
If you think the UN should do those things, then write a proposal about them instead of asking why it hasn't been done.

What about an International Space station on the moon?
Well... I sort of think the Lunar nations might be opposed to that. And the space-faring nations wouldn't be that interested either, except to regard it as a threat. Besides, the UNSC has already done some things in space.


You know...Bold.
Be as bold as you like. There's nothing stopping you.

Terms limits would help democratizes the Delegate processes.
Coding changes belong in Technical.