NationStates Jolt Archive

Mikitivity: meh, well, I never really got Gatesville anyway. There's that episode of Friends with Brad Pitt and the 'We hate Rachel Green Club'. Sometimes it seems a bit like that: sitting in their room giggling and saying nasty things about the UN. Still, their voting record hardly seems 'destructive', and they always seem to be lobbied like any other delegacy. I understand the idea of the 'belief of their region'...but it usually seems obvious when the UN regulars are throwing hissy fits. I'm surprised they aren't more efficient in their dastardly conspiracy.

There are some member nations there that certainly would qualify as charter members of the "We hate Rachel Green Club". And yes, it is utterly pointless. My government ignores their comments and statements.

But there are others that are attracted to the region in order to promote a sort of uber sovereignty.

The most organized UN conspiracy that has ever been called to the attention of my government would have been the 2004 Goontopia Bloc, and it hardly qualifies as a conspiracy, given that the Goontopian nations made it clear that their goal was to saturate the UN with a series of poorly written resolutions on a wide range of domestic issues. While they had enough endorsements that they should have been able to control which resolutions made it to the UN floor and which resolutions did not, plenty of other proposals proved more popular. Their plot failed. :)

Edit:
To Richard2008, l&e, and others ...

I've finished making a graph comparing the official UN vote to the UN forum poll. I'll email a copy of the image to Goobergunchia tonight and should have some time to Wikify the post analysis. :)

Welcome back.

Thank you :}

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote AGAINST the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

Edit:
To Richard2008, l&e, and others ...

I've finished making a graph comparing the official UN vote to the UN forum poll. I'll email a copy of the image to Goobergunchia tonight and should have some time to Wikify the post analysis. :)


thanks Mik ;)

The UN vote system is a dual system based on region+nation vote, and my present post is absolutly not intended to change anything but just to provide some stats:


- FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 7093 - 7193
Members - 3585 - 2462
Delegates - 624 - 455
Members+Delegates - 4209 - 2917
Delegate Votes - 3508 - 4731


% - FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 49,7 - 50,3
Members - 59,3 - 40,7
Delegates - 57,8 - 42,2
Members+Delegates - 59,1 - 40,9
Delegate Votes - 42,6 - 57,4

I wouldn't worry about it, L&E. Originally Diplomatic Immunity failed by about 100 votes too, but I resurrected and edited it a bit to help some of the concerns people had about, and hopefully it will reach quorum and pass again

TilEnca.
Hahahahaha! I knew there was something familiar about your way of writing smilies! Welcome back, mate.

Hovewer, as Blu-ray and HD DVD will replace DVD as soon as spring 2006, i hope they will not be so angry against me as "DVD Region Removal" if not repealed would have been obsolete as soon as spring 2006, it's why even if "Worldwide Media Act" failed, we think it's was worth trying to do it.

Furthermore, as i already stated in this forum, a top executive from Toshiba made the following statement last week:

“We’ve gotten a variety of opinions about region controls. Even in the Steering Committee, they are extremely unpopular; we decided to not put them in. HD DVD probably won’t contain any region playback controls.”

And that proves that you don't need UN involvement to prevent silly things. I hope this is a sign that we can leave businesses alone as long as non-essential (luxury) goods are involved and the public safety is not in danger. Let them solve it with the consumers, without government influence, and certainly without UN influence.

And that proves that you don't need UN involvement to prevent silly things. I hope this is a sign that we can leave businesses alone as long as non-essential (luxury) goods are involved and the public safety is not in danger. Let them solve it with the consumers, without government influence, and certainly without UN influence.


that proves nothing, as no decisions are yet taken on blu-ray

and i want to to say that 59% of nations (members+delegates) who voted on "Worldwide Media Act" voted FOR

And that proves that you don't need UN involvement to prevent silly things. I hope this is a sign that we can leave businesses alone as long as non-essential (luxury) goods are involved and the public safety is not in danger. Let them solve it with the consumers, without government influence, and certainly without UN influence.

and yes movies on UMD are not region free
=> we need something to prevent these silly things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Disc

Region 1: The US, US territories, Canada

Region 2: Europe, Japan, Middle East, Egypt, South Africa, Greenland

Region 3: Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong

Region 4: Mexico, South America, Central America, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, Caribbean

Region 5: Russia (former USSR), Eastern Europe, India, most of Africa, North Korea, Mongolia

Region 6: China

Wow, its defeated....huh.....I wonder why it was.

Oh well, get over it Anny...ain't nothing important. Hell, I read over it and I agreed to it. But, I suppose others saw something different. No biggy, at least diplomacy works! Lol.

Anywho, can't wait to see the next resolution.

Quorum quorum conga! Quorum qu...*stops dancing and singing suddenly*

The next resolution will be diplomatic immunity, written by myself and the Ausserland delegate. It reached quorum about five minutes ago, and hence I am still doing the quorum conga...

*starts dancing again*

...orum conga! Quorum quorum conga...

Quorum quorum conga! Quorum qu...*stops dancing and singing suddenly*

The next resolution will be diplomatic immunity, written by myself and the Ausserland delegate. It reached quorum about five minutes ago, and hence I am still doing the quorum conga...

*starts dancing again*

...orum conga! Quorum quorum conga...Our heartiest congratulations to the Cobdenian and Ausserlandian ambassadors, and to their respective governments. We're happy to be one of the last delegate nations to help bring your proposal to the floor: If anything, it will finally enable us to vote for a UN resolution that is not a repeal.

and yes movies on UMD are not region free
=> we need something to prevent these silly things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Media_Disc

We already have something to prevent that. Consumers that don't buy it.

Try to see that, for ***'s sake. You don't need to regulate this by UN resolution. Companies and consumers will sort it out. It's called a market.

We already have something to prevent that. Consumers that don't buy it.

Try to see that, for ***'s sake. You don't need to regulate this by UN resolution. Companies and consumers will sort it out. It's called a market.

The people of Cluichstan are glad that someone finally pointed this out.

The people of Cluichstan are glad that someone finally pointed this out.

(grin) Part of me wants to respond, but another part just wants to let this thread die and be dead :}

Wow, its defeated....huh.....I wonder why it was.

After reading all those telegram we received and many regional forum, here is the answer:

We made a mistake, our -4- following clause:

-4-URGES all Nations to uphold legislation against any media sharing, distribution, or reproduction methods which are widely considered piracy,

was very vague, and even if it was not intended, many people were afraid about government taking action against P2P and people only donwloading on P2P

we should have said "which are widely considered organised piracy" or something similar

But anyway it's not an echec as 59% of UN Members and Degates who voted on "Worldwide Media Act" voted FOR

We already have something to prevent that. Consumers that don't buy it.

Try to see that, for ***'s sake. You don't need to regulate this by UN resolution. Companies and consumers will sort it out. It's called a market.


you right, consumer don't buy them when there are too much restrictions => they prefer download them on P2P, but maybe for you P2P is Free trade => so everything is perfect you right

After reading all those telegram we received and many regional forum, here is the answer:

We made a mistake, our -4- following clause:

-4-URGES all Nations to uphold legislation against any media sharing, distribution, or reproduction methods which are widely considered piracy,

was very vague, and even if it was not intended, many people were afraid about government taking action against P2P and people only donwloading on P2P

we should have said "which are widely considered organised piracy" or something similar

But anyway it's not an echec as 59% of UN Members and Degates who voted on "Worldwide Media Act" voted FOR

You blame the failure of a resolution on Clause 4?

Have you ever considered the fact that your resolution was over-reaching and went beyond the doctrines of International Federalism?

Have you ever considered that nations maybe DON'T like being told what to do?

Guess not.

You blame the failure of a resolution on Clause 4?

Have you ever considered the fact that your resolution was over-reaching and went beyond the doctrines of International Federalism?


for 41% of Nations your are right, but for the other 59% you are wrong

our proposition failed only because the vote system is a dual one composed by regions and Nations

We fully respect this system, but if you have read the forum of many region you would have knew that even in regions where the delegate has more than 100 votes only very few nations voted on regional polls

The UN vote system is a dual system based on region+nation vote, and my present post is absolutly not intended to change anything but just to provide some stats:


- FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 7093 - 7193
Members - 3585 - 2462
Delegates - 624 - 455
Members+Delegates - 4209 - 2917
Delegate Votes - 3508 - 4731


% - FOR - AGAINST
Votes - 49,7 - 50,3
Members - 59,3 - 40,7
Delegates - 57,8 - 42,2
Members+Delegates - 59,1 - 40,9
Delegate Votes - 42,6 - 57,4

I'm assuming that you saved the Delegate votes and determined this information from that. This is pretty important information actually, and I'd love to try and make a graphical representation.

BTW, the graph for your Wiki entry has been uploaded. :) I'll not really have a chance in the next few days to do much with Wiki.

for 41% of Nations your are right, but for the other 59% you are wrong

our proposition failed only because the vote system is a dual one composed by regions and Nations

We fully respect this system, but if you have read the forum of many region you would have knew that even in regions where the delegate has more than 100 votes only a very few nations voted on regional polls


With all due respect to the various delegates I might have insulted, it was not my intent, or at least not my whole intent.

The West Pacific has around 550 votes at it's disposal, and when I was last here the vote was 3 to 2 against, based on what I considered spurious, if not downright wrong theorising about the resolution. I still think that connecting regional encoding to child porn was the most interesting piece of logic I have ever seen, and one that quite possibly directed a lot of other people to vote against it as well.

Further more the fact that BITeland is not actually a member of The West Pacific just compounds the greivous nature of this comment. I am not going to accuse anyone of trying to corrupt a democratic system - that would never occur to me - however I find the whole thing remarkably suspicious given that the vote failed by only 100 votes.

Anyway - the vote failed, almost entirely because of the vote on this forum, and I just wanted to register my utter displeasure and distate of the way it was handled.

And to announce that, despite the fun I have had previously in The West Pacific (as a previous nation) I am quitting it now, because the whole place has just become one huge attempt to subvert any attempt at democracy.

No offence.


I am quitting The West Pacific over this vote. The fact that someone from another region could so effectively torpedo the vote simply by making nonsense claims is a good indication that the delegate system is entirely flawed and not a good way to run a democratic system. And even if I only live in one region, on my own, I am damned if I am going to have such a fraud perpetrated in my name again.

The eventual vote was eight to two against in The West Pacific, meaning that six people decided the outcome of the vote.

And thus democracy was once again validated as the best governmental system in the world.

I am quitting The West Pacific over this vote. The fact that someone from another region could so effectively torpedo the vote simply by making nonsense claims is a good indication that the delegate system is entirely flawed and not a good way to run a democratic system. And even if I only live in one region, on my own, I am damned if I am going to have such a fraud perpetrated in my name again.

The eventual vote was eight to two against in The West Pacific, meaning that six people decided the outcome of the vote.

And thus democracy was once again validated as the best governmental system in the world.

That happens in a lot of regions. The delegates repeatedly ask UN nations to tell them what they want. You can hardly blame them if those UN nations are too lazy to do so. In our region we have 50 or so UN nations, only 4 of us posted our positions in the thread on this resolution.

I won't comment on someone from outside your region commenting on this but one person can and does change the way a regional vote is swinging. I've done it in the FCS a couple of times including this resolution.

The vote was running 2 for until I put my post up. Both of them changed their vote to against because of it and the only other person who bothered to post was against as well. I didn't force people to change their minds, it was their choice. Perhaps I raised something they hadn't thought of. That may have happened in The West Pacific as well.

That happens in a lot of regions. The delegates repeatedly ask UN nations to tell them what they want. You can hardly blame them if those UN nations are too lazy to do so. In our region we have 50 or so UN nations, only 4 of us posted our positions in the thread on this resolution.


I do understand that. It doesn't make me happy though :}


I won't comment on someone from outside your region commenting on this but one person can and does change the way a regional vote is swinging. I've done it in the FCS a couple of times including this resolution.


And quite honestly I find it a bad thing. The UN delegate was selected to represent his members, not members from other groups. While I don't mind people posting, I object to them voting (and I admit, I have no way to know if this happened or not, but I am guessing it did)


The vote was running 2 for until I put my post up. Both of them changed their vote to against because of it and the only other person who bothered to post was against as well. I didn't force people to change their minds, it was their choice. Perhaps I raised something they hadn't thought of. That may have happened in The West Pacific as well.

And again - if the post is reasonable and well thought out and convincing, then I can live with it, even if it is wrong. But this was just scare tactics of the worst order - saying that this resolution would require people to accept child porn in their region. If something is bad, people will vote against it without people having to resort to lies.

Anyway - I have founded a new region (Garvania) because of the result of this vote, and the way the vote in TWP was handled, so it's not all bad.

Fair enough.

I do understand why you are upset about what happened. Should have put that in my last post.

Good luck with your new region :).

Fair enough.

I do understand why you are upset about what happened. Should have put that in my last post.

Good luck with your new region :).

Why thank you.

for 41% of Nations your are right, but for the other 59% you are wrong

our proposition failed only because the vote system is a dual one composed by regions and Nations

We fully respect this system, but if you have read the forum of many region you would have knew that even in regions where the delegate has more than 100 votes only very few nations voted on regional polls

I can hear the blacklash against the delgate system.

However, the delegate system is really there for a reason: it is to give reigons a say in politics. The system of votes is divided in this way:

Every UN nation has one vote regardless of popluation. They use that vote for and against.

Each delgate, however, has votes depending on how many support them as delgate. This is because big reigons has more people and therefore has more at stake at resolutions. Therefore, nations back delgates, and the more nations back the delgates, the more people the delgates represent. This is a comprimse, really, between those who say big nations should get more votes than small nations and that each nation should get one vote.

(OOC: IRL, this is also the system the US use in their Congress...2 votes each state in the senate, and many reps. in the House of Rep. depending on how many people are in each state. Also how electoral college works.)

If you do not like the delgates for voting against your propsal, you must withdraw that nomination of the person. He's the one who's the enemy and not the reigonal system. Then, back somebody who DOES see your way.

And, not ALL who voted YES to the resolution even read it. Many people vote YES regardless of what the propsal say, they just do it. Not caring of the consquences of the people to the resolution, this is not okay. The delgate system acts as a counterpoint, because those with much delgates pay more attention to the politics of the UN and make informed desicions.

EDIT: And with such a close race, anything could have happened. I would put the blame (or should I say glory?) of voting down the resolution on gatesville, with their reigon totally against the UN and yet having more than 2/3 of their nations inside of it. But, really, anything could have happened that swayed the vote, it wasn't just TWP...

I can hear the blacklash against the delgate system.


(grin) I don't think that L&E or I are calling for a revolution in the UN, or even a minor change. We are just voicing our opinions about the last vote.


If you do not like the delgates for voting against your propsal, you must withdraw that nomination of the person. He's the one who's the enemy and not the reigonal system. Then, back somebody who DOES see your way.


However you are not permitted to do that. I didn't endorse my (previous) delegate, but I am not permitted to endorse anyone from another region.


And, not ALL who voted YES to the resolution even read it. Many people vote YES regardless of what the propsal say, they just do it. Not caring of the consquences of the people to the resolution, this is not okay. The delgate system acts as a counterpoint, because those with much delgates pay more attention to the politics of the UN and make informed desicions.


The arugement against that is that the delegate system puts far too much power in one place. TWP was decided by ten people - those ten people decided the vote of one delegate with an awesome amount of power - 580 votes (more or less). But 580 people endorsed Minineenee, so of all the people who he speaks for only 1% of them bothered to vote.


EDIT: And with such a close race, anything could have happened. I would put the blame (or should I say glory?) of voting down the resolution on gatesville, with their reigon totally against the UN and yet having more than 2/3 of their nations inside of it. But, really, anything could have happened that swayed the vote, it wasn't just TWP...

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

But - as I said - I don't think that either of us are calling for a permentent revolution in regard to the voting. This is the way it is and we accept that. (But in a democracy we should have the right to bitch about it when we want!)

Hahahahaha! I knew there was something familiar about your way of writing smilies! Welcome back, mate.

(smile) And here I was hoping you might pick up on my keen interlect, my witty and incisive writing style and my general ability to get to the heart of an arguement with no fuss nor bother.

But no - you remember my smilies.

I feel so loved :}

(smirk)

That happens in a lot of regions. The delegates repeatedly ask UN nations to tell them what they want. You can hardly blame them if those UN nations are too lazy to do so. In our region we have 50 or so UN nations, only 4 of us posted our positions in the thread on this resolution.
OOC: That's what used to happen in my region, I'd ask how they wanted me to vote and get maybe one answer (granted there's only about five UN nations in my region, but still), so I finally just quit asking. I figure that if they don't like the way I vote on the resolutions then they can just take the job from me.

I figure that if they don't like the way I vote on the resolutions then they can just take the job from me.I agree completely. Sort of the basis of representative democracy. What is the point of a region electing a delegate if he's just going to bow to the wishes of the region anyway?

I think that the wrong presumption here is that only those 10 people decide on a massive delegate vote. All the others apparently didn't care enough, but trust the delegate to take the right decision on their behalf. After all, they endorsed the delegate, and they didn't tell the delegate what to do. That is democracy too.

Fortunately, in my regions things are organized a bit better so there are no complaints about our delegates. And he did the right thing, which was vote against this. Considering the small difference, our region could even be seen as the deciding vote! :) (just as any other mid-sized region of course).

But the bottom line is, this resolution went down, and I don't care how or what nasty political games were involved; the West Pacific Delegate did the right thing, and that's what counts. (always knew there are sensible people in the TWP)

I can hear the blacklash against the delgate system.

However, the delegate system is really there for a reason: it is to give reigons a say in politics. The system of votes is divided in this way:

Every UN nation has one vote regardless of popluation. They use that vote for and against.

Each delgate, however, has votes depending on how many support them as delgate. This is because big reigons has more people and therefore has more at stake at resolutions. Therefore, nations back delgates, and the more nations back the delgates, the more people the delgates represent. This is a comprimse, really, between those who say big nations should get more votes than small nations and that each nation should get one vote.

(OOC: IRL, this is also the system the US use in their Congress...2 votes each state in the senate, and many reps. in the House of Rep. depending on how many people are in each state. Also how electoral college works.)

If you do not like the delgates for voting against your propsal, you must withdraw that nomination of the person. He's the one who's the enemy and not the reigonal system. Then, back somebody who DOES see your way.

And, not ALL who voted YES to the resolution even read it. Many people vote YES regardless of what the propsal say, they just do it. Not caring of the consquences of the people to the resolution, this is not okay. The delgate system acts as a counterpoint, because those with much delgates pay more attention to the politics of the UN and make informed desicions.

EDIT: And with such a close race, anything could have happened. I would put the blame (or should I say glory?) of voting down the resolution on gatesville, with their reigon totally against the UN and yet having more than 2/3 of their nations inside of it. But, really, anything could have happened that swayed the vote, it wasn't just TWP...


We have said that we respect the actual system, we didn't criticize it, because we don't have something better to propose anyway.

But as you have said:

"Have you ever considered the fact that your resolution was over-reaching and went beyond the doctrines of International Federalism?"

i just answered you that obviously most nations who voted didn't think your way


i fully agree with you that many nations don't read 100% of the text (as i have already say it on the forum few weks ago, and i myself didn't read one few weeks ago also, i admit that i approved solar panel as a delegate without reading 100% of it)

but, i think there are nations who don't read 100% of the text, in the 2 sides: FOR and AGAINST for each resolution at vote (including resolutions and repeals where i'm author or co-author passed or failed)

I'm assuming that you saved the Delegate votes and determined this information from that. This is pretty important information actually, and I'd love to try and make a graphical representation.

BTW, the graph for your Wiki entry has been uploaded. :) I'll not really have a chance in the next few days to do much with Wiki.

exactly, i saved a page with the vote
http://test256.free.fr/media%20vote.htm

for people interested in:
i use a simple tools, which is a button in the firefox bookmarks toolbar and which save a page in 1 click

as i don't know exactly "the vote ending time" but know it's approx 18:54-18:55 greenwhich time, i saved a page every 40-50 seconds at this time

here is the excell sheet where the stats come from:
http://test256.free.fr/media.xls

I'd like to ask all governments interested in talking about the significance of our voting mechanisms to consider starting a new thread. We can still use this resolution as an example, but the subject of representation and voter activity / participation is largely unrelated to the specifics of the Worldwide Media Act.

This is just a friendly redirect request on my part ... I do think this is a conservation worth having! :)

If people want to talk about this, I'd ask that you repost your main points about "representation" in the new thread, so new readers can follow along as well.

Danke!

here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449842)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx

i posted this link already 5 or 6 times, i even don't remember
but nobody made any comments....

....i will continue to post this link, on the forum...

You can download there some High definition videos

If the definition of your screen is <1024*768, sorry you will not see any differences
if your computer is not very powerful, as mine, it will lag a little bit (or will even really lag)

if you have only a 17" screen (as me) and not a 20" or if you don't have a powerful computer, download those in 720p, otherwise it's pretty good for you, you can download those in 1080p, you will be even more impress

Enjoy

i posted this link already 5 or 6 times, i even don't remember

Which raises the question of why you keep posting it.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx

i posted this link already 5 or 6 times, i even don't remember
but nobody made any comments....

Probably nobody replied because it wasn't relevent to the discussion.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative