NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello fellow UN Member States,

Noting that the docket of the General Assembly is often kept open, while dozens of very thoughtful, proposed resolutions languish in the queue, I have recently proposed a new UN resolution entitled "UN Resolution Approval Reform." If approved by a quorum of the Regional Delegates, it would lower the percentage of UN Regional Delegates required to approve a resolution for a vote by the General Assembly to 3% (63 with the current U.N. population, still more than any proposal currently holds). I realise, of course, that resolutions to change the game mechanics are technically "illegal," and such changes can only actually be made by the site programmer. I would also strongly suggest, however, that if such a resolution were to make its way all the way through the General Assembly and become part of international law, it would make a *much* stronger case to the site programmer that the member nations would really like to see UN Resolution Approval Reform than me simply making the request in the "Technical" forum. Please help me make this case to the Game Moderator by endorsing the proposal! Thank you for your time and consideration.

Very truly yours,

H.M.H.I.M. Dariush the Greatest
Regional Delegate, Who is Mike Jones?

Illegal; you can't have a resolution to get the game mechanics changed.

But I do agree...

That's nice, but it's illegal. You can't submit proposals to change the game mechanics. And, given some recent proposals that have made it to quorum, I'm not sure why we'd want to make it easier anyway.

meddling with the quorom requirements is a games mechanics violation.

if i had my way i would actually raise the percentage required so that more thought, effort and promotion has to go into a proposal.

As already mentioned, illegal. That aside, we would just like to register a hearty "Hell No" to the idea in general.

I would have to agree with the rest of the people. This is a highly illegal proposal.Game Mechanics is already set in stone and you cannot change that. We are sorry.

The way I see it, even if you do raise it, shoddy proposals will still get through because you need a telegram campaign; and telegramming 1000 people isn't that more difficult than 800.

I'd rather have it lower and ban telegram campaigns. Somehow.

The way I see it, even if you do raise it, shoddy proposals will still get through because you need a telegram campaign; and telegramming 1000 people isn't that more difficult than 800.

I'd rather have it lower and ban telegram campaigns. Somehow.

Not sure I agree with that. Delegates normally tell me to fuck off when I TG them. I wish we didn't have to TG, but otherwise it seems not enough delegate scan the proposal lists regularly enough.

Greetings friends!

If you would be so kind as to please at least read and consider endorsing my new resolution "UN Resolution Approval Reform," which would *help* clear the way for the more thoughtful proposed resolutions to receive an up or down vote in front of the General Assembly, instead of having dozens of proposals languishing in the queue while the docket of the General Assembly remains empty for days on end (as it has been recently).

You can find it here: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=approval

Thanks very much,

Dariush

Greetings friends!

If you would be so kind as to please at least read and consider endorsing my new resolution "UN Resolution Approval Reform," which would *help* clear the way for the more thoughtful proposed resolutions to receive an up or down vote in front of the General Assembly, instead of having dozens of proposals languishing in the queue while the docket of the General Assembly remains empty for days on end (as it has been recently).

You can find it here: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=approval

Thanks very much,

Dariush

Its illegal, and goes against the game mechanics rule. Perhaps you should read the propsal rules thread stickied at the top of this forum ;).

Greetings friends!

If you would be so kind as to please at least read and consider endorsing my new resolution "UN Resolution Approval Reform,"

We read it.

It's illegal.

And that aside we maintain our previous sentiment. We would really rather not dwell on the idea of some of the proposals which might manage to reach quorum if it were easier to get them there.

I agree with My comrade and fearless (feckless? J/K) leader Reformentia that considering the rubbish that has gone through like the record breaking solar panels resolution, which broke the record for quickest repeal. The LAST thing we should do is to lower how many approvals a resolution needs. Thats even if the proposal was not illegal though I would like to suggest that the minimum be raised instead.

Its illegal, and goes against the game mechanics rule. Perhaps you should read the propsal rules thread stickied at the top of this forum ;).

Perhaps I did read the proposal rules thread. Perhaps I also explained why I wanted to get my resolution passed anyway, even though it would not go into effect. Perhaps you should've read my entire note before blaspheming my resolution. Perhaps. Yes. I will now quote the pertinent section to reiterate.

I realise, of course, that resolutions to change the game mechanics are technically "illegal," and such changes can only actually be made by the site programmer. I would also strongly suggest, however, that if such a resolution were to make its way all the way through the General Assembly and become part of international law, it would make a *much* stronger case to the site programmer that the member nations would really like to see UN Resolution Approval Reform than me simply making the request in the "Technical" forum. Please help me make this case to the Game Moderator by endorsing the proposal!

Cheers,

-D

No.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

You knowing that it was illegal DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS ILLEGAL. If I kill someone with an axe, and stand over the bloodied corpse saying, "Ah, but I was trying to convince the House of Lords to change the laws such that brutal, hatchet-wielding homicide suddenly became de rigeur," it would not at that point change the legality of that action. Please stop wasting our time: if you want a coding change, go ask in Tech. They'll say no, even if 2,000 delegates support you.

Perhaps I did read the proposal rules thread. Perhaps I also explained why I wanted to get my resolution passed anyway, even though it would not go into effect. Perhaps you should've read my entire note before blaspheming my resolution. Perhaps. Yes. I will now quote the pertinent section to reiterate.

I realise, of course, that resolutions to change the game mechanics are technically "illegal," and such changes can only actually be made by the site programmer. I would also strongly suggest, however, that if such a resolution were to make its way all the way through the General Assembly and become part of international law, it would make a *much* stronger case to the site programmer that the member nations would really like to see UN Resolution Approval Reform than me simply making the request in the "Technical" forum. Please help me make this case to the Game Moderator by endorsing the proposal!

It cannot make it through the General assembly. It cannot be made part of international law. It cannot even be put to a vote.

Because it's illegal.

It will be deleted on sight. And it doesn't matter of 200 delegates endorse it before that happens you're not going to get the admins to do a coding change.

We would really rather not dwell on the idea of some of the proposals which might manage to reach quorum if it were easier to get them there.

We respectfully disagree. We maintain that any UN proposed resolution that is able to garner at least 3% of the regional delegates' endorsements has a right, in the name of the democratic principles upon which the United Nations was founded, to be given an up or down vote by the General Assembly.

As a practical matter, the docket of the General Assembly is often kept open, while dozens of very thoughtful proposed resolutions languish in the queue. As We stated in Our resolution, the sustained future of the world relies upon the efficient functioning of the UN, which by necessity works primarily through the passage of such resolutions. Our resolution would ensure that pressing issues are brought before the assembled nations in a timely manner, and the docket of the General Assembly will not remain empty for long periods of time (as it has been for the previous several days).

Yours,

-D

We respectfully disagree. We maintain that any UN proposed resolution that is able to garner at least 3% of the regional delegates' endorsements has a right, in the name of the democratic principles upon which the United Nations was founded, to be given an up or down vote by the General Assembly.

3% approval constitutes democracy? You're saying if 97% of all delegates, and potentially 29,940 out of 30,000 members, reject something, it's been democratically approved?

As a practical matter, the docket of the General Assembly is often kept open, while dozens of very thoughtful proposed resolutions languish in the queue. As We stated in Our resolution, the sustained future of the world relies upon the efficient functioning of the UN, which by necessity works primarily through the passage of such resolutions. Our resolution would ensure that pressing issues are brought before the assembled nations in a timely manner, and the docket of the General Assembly will not remain empty for long periods of time (as it has been for the previous several days).

Where are all these thoughtful proposals? I can't see more than two or three in queue at the moment. Why not write one, instead of trying to force poor legislation on us?

We respectfully disagree. We maintain that any UN proposed resolution that is able to garner at least 3% of the regional delegates' endorsements has a right, in the name of the democratic principles upon which the United Nations was founded, to be given an up or down vote by the General Assembly.

And why, pray tell, is 3% the magic number establishing the right to be given an up or down vote under these "democratic principles" as opposed to 6%?

As a practical matter, the docket of the General Assembly is often kept open, while dozens of very thoughtful proposed resolutions languish in the queue.

As well as a great many more resolutions it is better never see the light of day.

As We stated in Our resolution, the sustained future of the world relies upon the efficient functioning of the UN, which by necessity works primarily through the passage of such resolutions.

Which it seems to be doing as is.

Our resolution would ensure that pressing issues are brought before the assembled nations in a timely manner,

As well as a hundred and one non pressing issues that eat up most of a week of voting time. Each. While one of those "pressing" resolutions is queued up behind them to be voted on sometime in the next year or so. We prefer the occasionally empty docket to the perpetually stuffed with garbage docket.

If I kill someone with an axe, and stand over the bloodied corpse saying, "Ah, but I was trying to convince the House of Lords to change the laws such that brutal, hatchet-wielding homicide suddenly became de rigeur," it would not at that point change the legality of that action.

Your analogy is flawed, my friend, and I think you're missing the point besides. This is much more akin to asking the House of Lords to consider legislation making axe murder legal, giving my reasons why I think it should be, and asking for an up or down vote, which is all I'm asking for with regard to U.N. resolutions. Sure, the Queen (via her Prime Minister) would most certainly veto the legislation, even if it did make it through Lords and Commons, which as you have pointed out, would be highly unlikely. Still I believe I deserve my day in the assembly, just like all the other regional delegates. I have my right to propose the resolution, just as you have the right to oppose me.

Please stop wasting our time: if you want a coding change, go ask in Tech. They'll say no, even if 2,000 delegates support you.

I'm only wasting YOUR time if you continue the dialogue with me. ;-) And, haven't you ever heard of the tactic of doing your late work and then handing it into your teacher, asking her to take it late? I'll tell you from experience, it's a lot harder for her to say "no" when she's holding my hard work in her hot little hands. So, I'll keep mining for support, and we'll see if it passes, and if it does, then we'll see if the moderators say "no." I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't respond to a request that was endorsed by a majority of the Member States. If they're that unresponsive to our desires, how could they expect to continue to have players?

Cheers,

-D

No.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop
Jesus man..... the frizz, he say NO! end it! accept it and move on.

It's a waste of bloody time as it will be deleted within seconds.

Quite why the blazes you are labouring the point is beyond me...

Actually Ithink he should keep pushing it... eventually the mods will get sick and tired of him and nuke his little nation ;)

I know I should stop. Your proposal has been turned down by a mod, and will be deleted. But this is the UN forum.

Your analogy is flawed, my friend, and I think you're missing the point besides. This is much more akin to asking the House of Lords to consider legislation making axe murder legal, giving my reasons why I think it should be, and asking for an up or down vote, which is all I'm asking for with regard to U.N. resolutions. Sure, the Queen (via her Prime Minister) would most certainly veto the legislation, even if it did make it through Lords and Commons, which as you have pointed out, would be highly unlikely. Still I believe I deserve my day in the assembly, just like all the other regional delegates. I have my right to propose the resolution, just as you have the right to oppose me.

No, because your proposal is illegal. You have broken game laws. In your 'better analogy', you're doing nothing wrong. You have no right to propose legislation: you earn that privilege through receiving endorsements. Why you waste that opportunity submitting illegal resolutions is beyond me. If you want a coding change, the only way to do it is to lobby the mods. Repeals didn't get put in place because people submitted proposals that tried to repeal old resolutions.

I'm only wasting YOUR time if you continue the dialogue with me. ;-) And, haven't you ever heard of the tactic of doing your late work and then handing it into your teacher, asking her to take it late? I'll tell you from experience, it's a lot harder for her to say "no" when she's holding my hard work in her hot little hands. So, I'll keep mining for support, and we'll see if it passes, and if it does, then we'll see if the moderators say "no." I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't respond to a request that was endorsed by a majority of the Member States. If they're that unresponsive to our desires, how could they expect to continue to have players?

The moderators have already said "no". That was his exact wording. I find it incredibly easy to believe they wouldn't respond to a request that was endorsed by a majority of member states. But anyway, you're not talking about a majority: just 6% endorsement by delegates, who themselves constitute about 6% of the GA. And the mods are unresponsive to one person's request, and they get away with it, because we enjoy playing NS. That enjoyment would be severely hampered by having a deluge of stupid proposals.

3% approval constitutes democracy? You're saying if 97% of all delegates, and potentially 29,940 out of 30,000 members, reject something, it's been democratically approved?

Of course not! You clearly have not read my resolution, in which I clearly state:

"REALIZING that many UN Regional Delegates may not have the time or the inclination to sift through the often dozens of new resolutions proposed every day to approve the ones that would most benefit the world community."

Surely you don't believe that all 2100 odd-regional delegates sift through each of the new proposals every day, only to endorse the ones that meet their strict approval standards?

As to the second half of your question, if "potentially 29,940 out of 30,000" Member States rejected my proposal, of COURSE I would not think that it had been democratically approved! But, at that point, it would have been subjected to an UP or DOWN vote in front of the General Assembly, which is all I want for my resolution and many of the other thoughtful ones, which I have endorsed but which have not reached quorum. I am certain their failure to reach quorum has been a direct result of the fact that most "UN Regional Delegates may not have the time or the inclination to sift through the often dozens of new resolutions proposed every day to approve the ones that would most benefit the world community."

Where are all these thoughtful proposals? I can't see more than two or three in queue at the moment.

Have any of even those "two or three" reached quorum? Even 63 endorsements? I think not.

Why not write one, instead of trying to force poor legislation on us?

Look, friend. I realise that you feel my legislation is "poor," but I wrote it with the intention of trying to reform the system, to make it more democratic, to improve the process so people who come after me will be able to make the changes necessary to bring about a better world for all humankind.

I regret that I will not be able to count on your support for my resolution, but I sincerely hope that your elitist views are not in the majority.

Cheers,

-D

Im asking the Mods to close this! Its spam.

[/Niceguy]

No matter how you try to justify it, writing an illegal proposal is still a fucking stupid idea and wastes everybodies time.

Any more of this nonsence, and I'll get the cards out...

Of course not! You clearly have not read my resolution, in which I clearly state:

"REALIZING that many UN Regional Delegates may not have the time or the inclination to sift through the often dozens of new resolutions proposed every day to approve the ones that would most benefit the world community."

Surely you don't believe that all 2100 odd-regional delegates sift through each of the new proposals every day, only to endorse the ones that meet their strict approval standards?

No, I don't. But I believe that there are enough that do, and enough that respond to TG, that a decent proposal can easily reach quorum.

As to the second half of your question, if "potentially 29,940 out of 30,000" Member States rejected my proposal, of COURSE I would not think that it had been democratically approved! But, at that point, it would have been subjected to an UP or DOWN vote in front of the General Assembly, which is all I want for my resolution and many of the other thoughtful ones, which I have endorsed but which have not reached quorum. I am certain their failure to reach quorum has been a direct result of the fact that most "UN Regional Delegates may not have the time or the inclination to sift through the often dozens of new resolutions proposed every day to approve the ones that would most benefit the world community."

My point is that the democratic process of the UN is two-fold. You are trying to make one half of that less democratic, by subjecting people to resolutions which fewer delegates have approved.

Have any of even those "two or three" reached quorum? Even 63 endorsements? I think not.

Not yet, no. They've only just been submitted. It generally takes 2 or 3 days to get enough...although not always. Enn resubmitted Habeas Corpus 15 times. If you have faith in your legislation, and if it is good, you will get it to quorum.

Look, friend. I realise that you feel my legislation is "poor," but I wrote it with the intention of trying to reform the system, to make it more democratic, to improve the process so people who come after me will be able to make the changes necessary to bring about a better world for all humankind.

That's all very noble, stirring stuff. But until you provide examples of all this great legislation we're missing out on, it's a little hard to believe. After all, if something is good, it'll easily get 6% approval. If it doesn't, then how likely is it to pass the GA, and how likely is it to be any good anyway?

I regret that I will not be able to count on your support for my resolution, but I sincerely hope that your elitist views are not in the majority.

Excuse me for being elitist about legislation. You're right! We should subject our citizens to crap, poorly-conceived laws that lower their quality of life, just so boo-boo doesn't get upset his proposal is rejected. And, anyway, even if I was wrong, it would not matter: this is not a matter for the delegates to decide on. Your 'respect' for the UN's democratic principles is hard to understand when you are trying to circumvent those principles by introducing something beyond the jurisdiction of the delegate vote.

Perhaps I did read the proposal rules thread. Perhaps I also explained why I wanted to get my resolution passed anyway, even though it would not go into effect. Perhaps you should've read my entire note before blaspheming my resolution. Perhaps. Yes. I will now quote the pertinent section to reiterate.



Cheers,

-D

If you had read the rules then you would know that your propsal went against those rules and would never get to the floor, so why bother with it?

I did read it all.

Perhaps I was just confused at why someone who knew their proposal was illegal would still insist on putting it up and asking delegates to vote for it.

What the hell is this thread??? The Great UN Filibuster????:D

What the hell is this thread??? The Great UN Filibuster????:D

Will Prince Esheram Byron please be quiet! I'm trying to read my speech!

*continues*

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

There now is your insular city of the Manhattoes, belted round by wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs - commerce surrounds it with her surf. Right and left, the streets take you waterward. Its extreme down-town is the battery, where that noble mole is washed by waves, and cooled by breezes, which a few hours previous were out of sight of land. Look at the crowds of water-gazers there.

Circumambulate the city of a dreamy Sabbath afternoon. Go from Corlears Hook to Coenties Slip, and from thence, by Whitehall northward. What do you see? - Posted like silent sentinels all around the town, stand thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries. Some leaning against the spiles; some seated upon the pier-heads; some looking over the bulwarks ships from China; some high aloft in the rigging, as if striving to get a still better seaward peep. But these are all landsmen; of week days pent up in lath and plaster - tied to counters, nailed to benches, clinched to desks. How then is this? Are the green fields gone? What do they here?

*prepares to continue reading*

I was just confused at why someone who knew their proposal was illegal would still insist on putting it up and asking delegates to vote for it.
I was confused by someone who would repost after beng warned it was illegal.

Since only UN members may participate in UN filibusters, and the author is no longer a UN member, iLock.