NationStates Jolt Archive

simple question: how many people actually use their main nation as their UN nation? i know a few use puppets, while others, like myself, use their main one. for those who dont want to answer that they use their puppet so they dont get any 'your puppet is in the UN, not you, so dont post' type comments, just do the poll option instead. if you do wish to answer, any reason why you use a puppet? this is just a general interest thing

meanings
Main Nation: the nation that you log onto regularly, especially here in the forums.

Puppet Nation: a secondary nation, that may occasionally pop its head up in the forums, but generally not in here

for me, this is the main one. all my puppets are in the Archangel Haven region, and only 2 are being used for role-play atm.

I've only got one puppet at the moment, and that's only for vague humourous roleplay. Enn is my UN nation, and my main nation. Although it wasn't anywhere near my first as either.

My main nation is 'Godwinnia' (for which I've created an NSwiki entry), whilst St Edmund is one of its former colonies... although St E has grown enough, and become important enough in my plans, that I'm thinking of replacing it with a new 'puppet' - another former Godwinnian colony - for the NSUN role.

My puppet is a small nation not in the least interested in world affairs. Ardchoille, by contrast, is full of stickybeaks who like to know what's going on and blend a high tolerance for alcohol with a taste for harmless mischief.

I've always been a bit confused about the main nation, puppet question.

I consider Waterana my main nation because its my UN nation, the one I log into the most and the only one I post under on this forum (barring accidents).

Its not however my oldest nation, Skydragonia is older both by original creaton date (my very first NS nation) and resurrection date. It only acts as the founder nation of one of my regions however and has no real functions outside that.

So while I consider Waterana my main nation, I'm not sure which one would be given that title officially.

I can't be bothered with puppets. Just have Cobdenia. Oh, and New Cobdenia, but I'm letting that die. Probably dead already, actually.

My first nation, however, was called Stitinkistan

Gruenberg is my main forum nation, and my main UN nation. However, for non-RP (i.e. gameplay) reasons, I do switch membership now and then. Or now, in this case.

Main and only nation. I forgot my puppets. They starved.

This was my first nation; it's my main nation and my UN nation. I have several puppets, though I have little use for most of them. Of late I have been thinking of withdrawing from the UN and propping up a UN mission, but I have yet to find a good IC reason for doing so. Always good to have a contingency plan, however.

I use this one for UN stuff. As you can see, a puppet.

This was my second nation, but only by a matter of hours. The first was deleted for obscenity, I believe.

I disagreed with the decision.

I've always been a bit confused about the main nation, puppet question.
I consider Waterana my main nation because its my UN nation, the one I log into the most and the only one I post under on this forum (barring accidents).
Its not however my oldest nation, Skydragonia is older both by original creaton date (my very first NS nation) and resurrection date. It only acts as the founder nation of one of my regions however and has no real functions outside that.
So while I consider Waterana my main nation, I'm not sure which one would be given that title officially.

If they're conceptually unconnected then I'd probably call both of them "main" nations... St E, however, actually has past control by [the older nation of] Godwinnia written into its backstory and I created it specifically to be my UN member because I didn't want to have Godwinnia bound by all of the UN Resolutions...

Mikitivity is my first nation and also my main nation. I've not changed my UN membership to my puppet the Intl Red Cross, as it is really for roleplaying a non-governmental organization.

Personally I think it is silly when established players claim that they have another nation that is ACTIVE in the UN, but rely on a puppet. Once your nation is a year old, UN resolutions aren't going to bat you around nearly as effectively 2 daily issues per day will. And given that loopholes can be found in anything (nature of life), roleplaying non-compliance to ideals counter to your roleplay personae is easy.

The exception here is moderators. I totally understand (and agree) with their use of UN puppets. I remember back when an active moderator had a resolution on the UN floor back in early 2004, and it was interesting to see some of the active UN players whom regularly harassed and nitpicked others acting very different in a debate when a moderator was around. Personally I wish they'd be that way all the time ... but it only goes to show that people do respect moderators.

Personally I think it is silly when established players claim that they have another nation that is ACTIVE in the UN, but rely on a puppet.
Well just consider me silly then. The whole Yelda/Yeldan UN Mission thing came about in response to the passage of "UN Biological Weapons Ban". I objected to Article 5 and withdrew Yelda from the UN in protest. Yeldan UN Mission was only intended as a short term measure. I fully intended to bring Yelda back into the UN, but just never have gotten around to it. Ironically, I'm not upset over Resolution #113 anymore (wasn't upset OOC then) and there is no longer any real reason to have the UN Mission around. I'm also disturbed by the growing population of Yeldan UN Mission. There is NO WAY that 726 million people are living inside what is, essentially, the Yeldan Office of UN Affairs.

While I have several puppets only my main nation has ever been a UN member.

There is NO WAY that 726 million people are living inside what is, essentially, the Yeldan Office of UN Affairs.
Obviously they're very small people.

This effect is not just gameplay, Mikitivity. It also has to do with not wanting to be affected by silly UN legislation In Character. In my roleplaying circle I know of several examples:


Tarasovka has the Vigvar UN office (http://www.nationstates.net/09398/page=display_nation/nation=vigvar_un_office)
Menelmacar has the Vinyatiron UN Office (http://www.nationstates.net/09398/page=display_nation/nation=vinyatirion_un_office)
Yelda has the Yeldan UN mission (http://www.nationstates.net/09398/page=display_nation/nation=yeldan_un_mission)


I hold my UN membership with the Knootian East Indies for posting ease (never bothered to create a separate UN office) but a similar organisation assists In Character. This makes Aram Koopman the President of an office building micronation somewhere in The Hague. ;)

I suppose I should actually post in the UN with that micronation, but meh. Can't be bothered and the IC situation is clear. My primary concern is not that the effect the UN has on statistics (annoying as it is, with all the communist legislation being passed) but the Rped stuff. For example, the UN forces me to have a jury system. I do not want to RP a jury system because it is intrinsically flawed in my opinion. So there. :)

Ausserland is my main nation. I do have a couple of puppets lying around somewhere, though. (Now, where did I put those strings?) ;)

Obviously they're very small people.
It has to be some sort of bureaucratic glitch. I mean, we are a Sprawling Bureaucracy, but right now there are only a couple of dozen people in here. The rest are on vacation. [/puppetwank]

Hirota was my first nation, the only nation I ever used for the UN and the only nation I ever will

Kirisubo is the first nation i created and my UN nation.

i have a puppet in my region which i use when i need to leave the region to post on an RMB.

Well just consider me silly then. The whole Yelda/Yeldan UN Mission thing came about in response to the passage of "UN Biological Weapons Ban". I objected to Article 5 and withdrew Yelda from the UN in protest. Yeldan UN Mission was only intended as a short term measure. I fully intended to bring Yelda back into the UN, but just never have gotten around to it. Ironically, I'm not upset over Resolution #113 anymore (wasn't upset OOC then) and there is no longer any real reason to have the UN Mission around. I'm also disturbed by the growing population of Yeldan UN Mission. There is NO WAY that 726 million people are living inside what is, essentially, the Yeldan Office of UN Affairs.

Here is my thought on your case, "Yeldan UN Mission" doesn't sound like a country to me, but rather a roleplaying device. I've always *appreciated* that. :) I've never had you in mind.

The people I consider silly are those that create UN puppets to protect their nations from other people's ideas, while actively advocating for their own moronic ideas.

To quote Pink Floyd:
You can't eat your pudding, if you don't eat your meat.

The Empire of Forgottenlands is the one I use on the forums, the Colony of Forgottenlands UN is the one that actually votes.

I happen to like free trade pudding but not 40 hour workweek meat. Sue me. :rolleyes:

For my own part, I found it simpler to use my main nation for the UN. I had many puppets which I have now trimmed via Bobs Used Nation Sales. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/70775/page=display_region/region=bobs_used_nation_sales) . ( YAY Advertising! ) Anyhoo, while i have thrown a strop or two regarding this and that and have left the UN twice, I have always had just this nation as my UN nation.

NationStates allows one person to play more than one nation? I did read all of the introductory stuff, but it looks contradictory.

Is it OK to have multiple nations, as long as only one of them is in the NSUN?

Is it OK to have multiple nations, as long as only one of them is in the NSUN?
Exactly, you can have as many nations as you want (I believe the record for most nations held by one person is over 200) as long as only one is in the UN at any given time.

Yeah, I guess Krioval is pretty silly too, then! For the UN puppetry, that is. :D

Frankly, Krioval is future tech, and while I roleplay with plenty of modern tech nations, at the end of the day, Kriovalians sit around the holovid in their silksteel chairs, pop up the protective force shields around their property, and flip through the channels without need for a remote control. I attempt to do this without resorting to wanking like a hyperactive fourteen-year-old, and I feel I largely succeed.

My main concern has been, and will continue to be, the lack of mild environmental proposals. Thus, when the fluffies take over the UN for several months at a time, and we're mitigating reservoirs, protecting dolphins, and randomly assigning which energy source from which all UN members will henceforth use exclusively, it can kill even a modestly large nation's economy while the "meat" of the resolutions amounts to three narrow modifications of already existing protocols.

Maybe if it weren't almost trivial to pass a resolution on anything "nice sounding", there would be more investment by more NS and II roleplayers in the NSUN, at least in the form of having one's primary RP nation in the bloody thing. As it stands, though, I don't want to RP Krioval as a cookie-cutter nation with the same bland legal procedures and priorities as every other left-leaning nation in the NSUN.

In conclusion, unlike Yelda('s player), I take crappy resolutions far more personally, and I tend to cast the "crappy resolution net" far wider. That makes it nigh impossible to have an interesting debate when I know that a given resolution has a 90% chance of passage. Find a way for an imperial government with social and economic libertarian ideals to exist in the UN without having to roleplay noncompliance or do issue reversals, and I'd be happy to consider rejoining the UN with Krioval. Until then, accept things as they are. I know I've been forced to.

P.S. - May the guardians long prosper.

I take crappy resolutions far more personally, and I tend to cast the "crappy resolution net" far wider.

A bit of advice from somebody who is involved in real-life local government politics ... learn to not take other people's *opinions* on political issues personally. Resolutions / political ideas ... they aren't directed at an individual, so don't take them "far more personally".

Alright, I suppose I should justify the IC position:

The Empire of Forgottenlands has existed for a long time - nearly 3 years. It first entered the UN during the vote on End Slavery. After 3 months, it chose to withdraw from the International scene (I lost time for the game so let die from inactivity). When the United Nations of Aberdeen invited the Empire of Forgottenlands to join them, it did so happily. Under new pressures from the region, many citizens, in particular, one province, wished to return to the International scene, but the vast majority of the nation did not. With the government likewise under pressure to support the region by becoming involved in the UN, it was decided to bring forth the Colony of Forgottenlands UN, with one province breaking off from the Empire. However, the government of both was still the same for both nations, and not wishing to hide this fact, it was the Empire of Forgottenlands that speaks on behalf of the region (and was given the commission of UN Ambassador), even though the Colony of Forgottenlands UN got both the delegacy and cast the votes.

A bit of advice from somebody who is involved in real-life local government politics ... learn to not take other people's *opinions* on political issues personally. Resolutions / political ideas ... they aren't directed at an individual, so don't take them "far more personally".

Uh...huh...

That's incredibly easy to say when the political entity in question tends toward one's own point of view. And it comes across as incredibly condescending, another trait I strongly disdain in people. I'm intelligent enough to understand the political process, and I disagree with your assessment. Plenty of resolutions and political ideas originate as being directed toward individuals. In fact, I'd go as far as to consider that nearly all political ideas begin in this way. I doubt communism would have arisen if people didn't feel that they, personally, would benefit from it. Or their neighbors across the street.

The problems in the NSUN are the result of an intellectually apathetic electorate, many of whom see a "shiny new resolution" and vote for it. To be blunt, why should I roleplay Krioval at the whims of a bunch of high school students? Why should my gameplay experience be dictated by a bunch of contrived rules that bear little resemblance to the methods used in the real world? People bitch about wanking using puppets (not *that* way) or technology (also, not *that* way), but telegram campaign wankery seems to be a low priority. Problem is, I don't see many people wanting to make it more difficult to submit proposals, despite the glaring flaws of many of those making it to the floor (for almost guaranteed passage).

In other words, please don't, as someone who has passed a resolution using the tools of the trade to their fullest, tell me how I should play the game, or feel about it.

EDIT: I suppose whether the resolution in question is or is not good is subjective. For the record, I do feel that it was subpar, but that doesn't mean I should state it as if it were settled fact.

Uh...huh...

That's incredibly easy to say when the political entity in question tends toward one's own point of view. And it comes across as incredibly condescending, another trait I strongly disdain in people. I'm intelligent enough to understand the political process, and I disagree with your assessment.

You basically have declared that you are more critical than nearly anybody else and anything you don't like is "crap". How is that not you telling us that you know better than the majority of us???



When I don't post on a resolution, that rarely means I like it. In fact, I vote against many resolutions (especially poorly justified repeals) . I'm just not offended by people voting differently than me.

In fact, I vote against many resolutions (especially poorly justified repeals).There you go again. Another implicit jab at me and my dolphins repeal. (Since I can think of no other repeal to which you were so vehemently opposed, I naturally assumed.) Look, it's over, done and gone. The repeal failed, and everyone has since gotten over it, including me, and I wrote the damn thing.

Have you?

There you go again. Another implicit jab at me and my dolphins repeal. (Since I can think of no other repeal to which you were so vehemently opposed, I naturally assumed.) Look, it's over, done and gone. The repeal failed, and everyone has since gotten over it, including me, and I wrote the damn thing.

Have you?
OOC: Mik'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I think you're readng too much into this.

OOC: Mik'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I think you're readng too much into this.

Exactly. I'll reiterate the advice I passed along earlier. Don't take politics so personally. I've said this before, but will reiterate it here publically ... I actually *like* both your (to 'Kenny) nation (the wiki material you've done is fairly comprehensive and all of it interesting to read) and you as a person. :)

There have been plenty of repeals I've been *vocally* opposed to. In a month "Mikitivity" will be two years old, and while there are plenty of older states around, I've always kept a watchful eye (not voice) on the UN.

I think the issue here is similar to a very WRONG assumption made earlier too ... when I don't say something, that doesn't mean I support it. In fact, there have been a few resolutions I wanted to come out and say I didn't care for, but what many of you who are quick to call other people's hard work "crap" forget is that not everybody here has the same ability to craft words in the English language, let alone the time to really campaign for a resolution.

I hope he doesn't mind, but Groot Gouda (whom I totally respect and would love to chat with over some beers next time I'm in the Netherlands) isn't a native speaker (though his English is *amazing*) ... and I remember people tearing into him because of some typos.

It is just as likely that some of the resolutions some of us don't like might be coming from students or perhaps people whom have a *real life* understanding of the topic. For example, the Chipmunks "Microcredit" resolution was pretty heavy stuff, but if you spend some time research the RL UN's actions in this topic, he totally *nailed* it.

One man's castle is another man's dog house. To tie this all back into the thread at hand, my only complaint with people using puppets to INSULATE their "main" nation (whatever the hell a "main" nation is) often do so with this excuse including in the reasoning:

- "I don't want other people's ideas to impact my nation, but I'm more than happy to inflict my [better] world view on theirs ... it is their own damn fault if they don't grant themselves immunity via a puppet as I've so cleverly discovered!"

If everybody claimed they were immune to anything they didn't like, what would be the POINT of voting on resolutions?

The flip side is I happen to really *love* it when puppets are used for roleplaying purposes ... such as in the case of ambassadors or other inventions. I also think "tank rush" (aka region crashing) is also a neat part of the game. It takes away the mental battles of the UN or General forum and gets players to really cooperate as equals or to compete as equals. (Personally, having been on the losing side of an invasion it is frustrating, but looking back I realize that there was a fundamental respect that each nation was potentially the same value as any other UN member ... you all hold the key to region control.)

Finally if you want a specific example of a repeal I personally thought was based on an completely mistaken argument (not idea -- argument), look to the failed repeal of the 40 Hour Workweek. It had provisions for overtime and did nothing to prohibit second jobs or self-employment ... yet the authors of the repeal based their arguments on the title of the resolution alone. Big time mistake ... and it very nearly passed too!

I'm not calling that repeal "crap". But I was surprised how many players did not share my vocal opinion. :) Live and learn.

...I do consider myself to be a better player than people who vote without taking the time to consider the arguments on both sides of a resolution. And before I get called on it, no, I can't tell which votes were cast after careful consideration and which were not, but the alarming ease with which most resolutions sail through indicates that a decent subpopulation of the NSUN voting nations are clicking "FOR" and going on with things.

To turn this on its ear for a moment, why should I subject my primary (really, my only major) nation, which I use for roleplay, to the whims of people who can't be bothered to demonstrate any ability to control the "must pass resolution" impulse? Is there some inherent honor to this that I'm missing?

Further, why should there be some "puppetless" mandate to participate in UN discussion but there should be little restriction on the use (or abuse) of telegram proposals to ram a proposal through? Is the latter really qualitatively better than the former? I disbelieve, intensely.

It is just as likely that some of the resolutions some of us don't like might be coming from students or perhaps people whom have a *real life* understanding of the topic. For example, the Chipmunks "Microcredit" resolution was pretty heavy stuff, but if you spend some time research the RL UN's actions in this topic, he totally *nailed* it.

I'm all for people using their RL specialties in the NSUN, but what I dislike is that proposals generated from that information are considered, by some, to be sacrosanct. If I were an expert in ditch digging, should I automatically have the moral authority to legislate by proposal how NSUN members conduct their excavations? Would my hypothetical knowledge even be of much use if it were so incomprehensible to the general public that they were "shocked and awed" into voting yes by virtue of appeal to authority?

"I don't want other people's ideas to impact my nation, but I'm more than happy to inflict my [better] world view on theirs ... it is their own damn fault if they don't grant themselves immunity via a puppet as I've so cleverly discovered!"

Is there a point lurking beneath this smear? I mean, honestly, does it really bother you that much? I mean, I could just as easily claim that the anti-puppet squad holds the following opinion:

"I don't like that someone else can post on the UN forum without having to take seemingly random stat hits. Since I'm miserable with some resolutions, so should everybody else be, equally."

Yes, I *am* clever, though if this poll is accurate, I'm far from original. And I'm still mystified as to how the "find a loophole to exploit" is any better than using a UN puppet. Oh damn. I found the mother of all loopholes. So sue me.

Yes, I *am* clever, though if this poll is accurate, I'm far from original. And I'm still mystified as to how the "find a loophole to exploit" is any better than using a UN puppet. Oh damn. I found the mother of all loopholes. So sue me.

You're entitled to that opinion and one I think is healthy to hold, but please note that I've *not* shared my opinion on that subject.

As for the loopholes, the reason I like them, is being public about them, can open up a wide door for other players to try and influence you into compliance or mitigation. Watch how Forgottenlord will try and use people's own IC position statements to convince them ... he can do this because they've handed him a position to start with that was something other than "This is crap". (I actually like how he'll do that and then try to change the wording on draft proposals.)

The classic example was the Joccian Holocaust (Feb. 2004). Joccia was a player who disliked a number of resolutions, specifically the legalization of prostitution, mental illness, and euthanasia resolutions. He then created a series of posts here and later in the II forum in which he slowly rounded up prostitutes and had them euthanasised (sp?) for their own good. It was a rather creative and effective point at showing out taking three well meaning UN resolutions at face value could give a person like Hitler the means to excite the domestic masses into a genocide campaign. He invited a UN embargo and encouraged draft resolutions targetting him ... the mods put the stopper on that, so the RP resolved itself in the international incidents forum with a war. I'll wikify it some day, but the vast majority of the posts were lost in the move to Jolt back in July 2004. :(

In any event, my point isn't to say players need to commit to something nearly as demanding as what Joccia did, but that by thinking about a way around the problem and sharing that loophole, they actually provide a damn good justification for a repeal and possibly revised resolution. The United States is the perfect example of a country based on the idea that legislation should be *updated*. The US Constitution was written expressly with the intent that it would be amended ... and there is a large amount of speculation that the writers of the Constitution even expected a new document to be written at some point. While this isn't the way things have turned out, some stupid ass provisions of the Constitution --- such as the declaration that a black man is worth only 2/3 of a white man --- thankfully have been "repealed" and "replaced".

IMO puppets don't really provide the same opportunity for this ... instead they really do represent the attitude you started the post with ... an assumption of superior ability to reason through resolutions. That sort of thinking runs opposite the most underlying concept of democracy ... "You participate and surrender a bit of your sovereignty with the understanding that your opinion, though different, is equal to others." Note, this idea behind democracy is something that a number of philosphers long ago penned to paper, my favorite among them is the French Revolution's Rousseau and his "The Social Contract" in which he effectively argued about the tradeoffs of personal freedom and the formation of responsible governments. (It should be pointed out that Rousseau favorited direct democracies, something which even then were cited to being unmanageble ... an opinion which I share.)


On a personal note, I've been a county election worker since 1998, and I've worked elections in many different communities. Now I could actually become a poll watcher or political advocate and bring more people out to vote whom share *only* my ideals. The system is designed to encourage this sort of behavior in the United States. However, I've worked in neutral government positions for both elections and professionally all my adult life (which is measured in years at this point ... though Fris still has a few tree rings on me)... primarily because my earlier statement: don't take politics personally is followed by another philosophy: sometimes my ideas will come out on top, and sometimes they'll come out on bottom, but the minute I start believing it is my way or the highway, others will start to behave the same way, and all of our ideas will be lost.

It is by no accident that I chose to move my nation from a feeder (which are cool regions) to a group called the "international democratic union". It isn't because I have any great admiration for either Clinton (they are OK though) ... it is because I (and hence my nation) believes completely in the concept of democracy. I very honestly believe people whom want a democracy to work, have to learn to place some amount (not complete) of faith into other's decision making abilities.

So closing with the original question, I do respect (though rarely agree) with the opinions of others, and in doing so, I will keep Mikitivity along for the bumpy UN ride. When it comes to a point when I truely believe my ideas are being completely ignored, I'll consider the "Social International Contract" broken and leave. But as Gruenberg was recently reminding me, there have been a number of civil discussions and thoughtful debates in recent months here. Overall, I really feel most players are interested in testing their opinions in a fair and honest vote.

Now showing on our primary topic screen, "how many use main nation as UN nation?" The short feature is now over. Please return to your seats.