NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone has to suggest a resolution or something demanding people to READ THE FRIGGIN RESOLUTIONS before they vote "FOR". It's ridiculous. So many resolutions that make no sense passed. It seems that the UN members are mere sheep saying "for".


Just a suggestion.

While I agree with you, there's really not much that can be done.

[OOC: Now you understand Hamilton's fear of the mob, eh? :)]

Someone has to suggest a resolution or something demanding people to READ THE FRIGGIN RESOLUTIONS before they vote "FOR". It's ridiculous. So many resolutions that make no sense passed. It seems that the UN members are mere sheep saying "for".


Just a suggestion.


Two thoughts: the NO votes are just as capable of voting based on scanning a resolution. Case in point, the arguments (not votes) claiming that it was rediculous to limit workers to 40-hour workweeks, when the resolution itself included provisions for overtime pay and longer workweeks and said nothing about self-employment or second jobs.

That said, you could play "Hangman" where elements of the resolution are revealed in random order ... you'd be forced to read it space bar hit via space bar hit at a time in pieces. ;) Of course that would just be too annoying.

On that note, I absolute frakking hate it when powerpoint presentations are given where the speakers reveal one bullet point at a time *and* when the people literally just read their bullet items.

But hey, who ever said life was easy, probably was one spoiled puppy in their prior life. ;)

What exactly are you on?

What exactly are you on?

I don't know what your issue is, but as a player that isn't new here and complaining about how people don't read posts first, you might want to watch the flame baiting.

Though there aren't as many examples of where "NO" voters or repeal supports voted without reading a resolution or repeal, they do exist. The sheep many players whine about exist on both sides YES and NO. To claim it is only YES voters that cast votes first undermines what could be a serious point.

There isn't a way you can really force people to read anything. Period. Ironically your own reply to my post proves that point.

I replied like that because you seemed somewhat incoherent.

And don't you wonder why every resolution is passed no matter how ridiculous it might be?

I replied like that because you seemed somewhat incoherent.

And don't you wonder why every resolution is passed no matter how ridiculous it might be?

A flame is a flame ... you still could have actually bothered to read the post. Especially in light of the fact that your complaint is that players don't read the complete text of a resolution prior to voting.

And no, I don't wonder why 'every resolution is passed', because a number of them have failed. You've been playing since mid-2004, so you should have observed a large number of those failed resolutions. There is a NSWiki article documenting the failed resolutions ... I'd be happy to provide the link if you like.

The reason a large number of resolutions pass, is it isn't easy to collect 6% of the UN Delegate endorsements for a proposal to reach quorum and become a resolution. Now bear in mind, I'm not saying that I approve of all of the resolutions ... but I am not going to sit here and insult people just because I happen to disagree with them.

If I wanted everybody to think the way I think, I wouldn't have joined the UN where everybody gets a vote. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't.

I replied like that because you seemed somewhat incoherent.

And don't you wonder why every resolution is passed no matter how ridiculous it might be?

At the end of the day people vote on what they think is best. Some people come to these conclusions without thinking others put a great deal of thought into it. You can not prove one from the other. You can not use 'disagrees with me' as the criteria.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I replied like that because you seemed somewhat incoherent.

And don't you wonder why every resolution is passed no matter how ridiculous it might be?

Actually Miktivity makes a whole lot of sense. If you can't understand it, that's your failing.

And your observation is fundamentally flawed. If you were a young nation you could be forgiven for making such an observation, but as an older nation you should know better.

I replied like that because you seemed somewhat incoherent.

And don't you wonder why every resolution is passed no matter how ridiculous it might be?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Category:Failed_Resolutions

The history of the UN shows that 23 out of 165 resolutions have failed (this discounts any that were removed or deleted for various reasons), which is just over 1/8th.

So - obviously - not every resolution passes, no matter how dumb or stupid it is.

So there :}

edit

Revised history shows that 132 + 23 does not infact add up to 165.

So 23 out of 155 resolutions have passed, which bumps it up to 15% (appx 1/6th)

But still - the point is even better proven than it was with 1 in 6 resolutions being voted down.

(Note - this discounts those failed, removed and The Axis of Evil cause it was not really a resolution)

Furthermore, that doesn't take into account the many, many proposals that don't reach quorum, and all the drafts and ideas that don't each reach that stage. Moaning about resolutions constantly passing is pointless. If the resolutions are so inherently stupid, drafting a repeal should be no trouble: your repeal will pass, of course, because everyone just clicks 'for', right? Instead of whining, do something.

OOC: Details? Reasoning? Are you saying that repealing UCPL was bad? That supporting the current resolution is bad? If you're going to whinge, at least give us a hint...

Hmm. I know that name. Did leaving the ACA drain you of the will to properly justify your actions?

No it didn't. I agree with the last Repeal resolution. The UCPL thing was ridiculous, I don't understand why it was passed.

Let me clarify myself, it was almost 4 am, I was tired and pissed. That's also why I probably didn't understand Mikivity's post, which is clear now. I guess that I was the one on something.

But seriously, a lot of people just vote FOR for no reason at all. Maybe there could be a red message near the choices saying something like "By voting on this resolution, you confirm that you understand it's proposition(s) and the consequences of your vote."

Or something...


Oh, and if I do not pay attention to the resolutions that have been rejected, it's probably because I don't spend that much time running my country. And my UN representative tells me nothing.

But seriously, a lot of people just vote FOR for no reason at all. Maybe there could be a red message near the choices saying something like "By voting on this resolution, you confirm that you understand it's proposition(s) and the consequences of your vote."


That won't help - sometimes the consequences are different in different people's minds, so that you might look at a proposal and think "that is, by far and away, the dumbest thing I have ever seen" but someone else, who interprets it differently, will say "that is, by far and away, the best thing I have ever seen"

Further more - just to mix up more stats - each page of proposals has five proposals on them. On average there are, on any given day, around 7 to 8 pages, and each one lasts for around a week (give or take).

Now that means there are - on average - around 40 proposals per week that make it to the UN for decisions. A lot of them don't get voted on, because they don't make it to the floor, and so far only around 1 or 2 per week have made it - maybe less than that.

So - if you then apply that to say the past two years (2005, 2004), that means the number of proposals that passed, and made it to resolution status (which I would estimate to be around 40 per year, but you can check that) is HUGELY outweighed by the number that don't - by a factor of nearly 50 to 1.

The reason that most (5/6 of them) pass when they reach the floor is that they are usually have to be *that good* to gain enough support to do it.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. NationStates is the worst form of reactionary politics. Here, the vast maority of people are idealists who think that every "warm fuzzy" idea is a good one. In fact, it takes a heck of a lot of bitter arguing to get them plucked off of the bitter arguing. Throughout time, this necessity to vote for the "warm fuzzy" resolutions has deteriorated somewhat as people have become more and more aware and concerned of the consequences of this problem, but they still are not in the majority.

Thus, intelligence is not measured, nor is the amount of time spent actually analyzing the resolutions. I, myself, initially supported Solar Panels. However, then I thought it through and the farther I went into the nitty gritty details of various power production methods and whatnot, I realize it was a ridiculous idea to implement at such a grand scale (it didn't help that one of my friends had been raving about the advantages of this system to me and some of the successful stories that exist in real life less than a month prior). 10 days after the resolution had been passed, it had been repealed. The only reason that wasn't faster was because another resolution was already in queue (otherwise, it would've made 8 days). The question isn't entirely "do I read this proposal enough", it's "did I think this through enough". I ended up abstaining on 5 straight resolutions because I couldn't answer yes to that question. The vast majority of the UN, however, does not abstain, and cannot truthfully say yes to that question.

Furthermore, that doesn't take into account the many, many proposals that don't reach quorum, and all the drafts and ideas that don't each reach that stage. Moaning about resolutions constantly passing is pointless. If the resolutions are so inherently stupid, drafting a repeal should be no trouble: your repeal will pass, of course, because everyone just clicks 'for', right? Instead of whining, do something.


I fully agree;) and i should add that Gruenberg himself made the demonstartion of what he just said no latter than this week:

He didn't like UCPL, then he wrote a draft, posted it on the forum, improved it, campaigned and ......:D

So if there is a resolution you really don't like, you know what to do:p

OOC: Apologies, Tribal Ecology. I was too harsh on you there. Grouchy after another long shift at work, I guess.

OOC: Apologies, Tribal Ecology. I was too harsh on you there. Grouchy after another long shift at work, I guess.
Ahem.

Someone has to suggest a resolution or something demanding people to READ THE FRIGGIN RESOLUTIONS before they vote "FOR". It's ridiculous. So many resolutions that make no sense passed. It seems that the UN members are mere sheep saying "for".


Just a suggestion.

I'd just like to begin by saying that I feel sympathetic to the views expressed by the honourable delegate for Tribal Equality. It can be extremely frustrating to see a lot of naive or ill-informed questions tarnish an otherwise entertaining and informing debate. Equally, there is a saddening tendency for mindless yes/no voting. Yet overall most ideas require deep thought and careful sheperding prior to coming to the floor officially and then an additional process of hard work to ensure their passage. It seems wrong to demean U.N. members as sheep, but I'll ascribe your harshness to your annoyance. It would be impossible of course, to enforce the act you suggest, but I'll admit it can sometimes seem tempting.

In future, console yourself perhaps with the thought that you are out-doing them and proving yourself a worthier member and participant in U.N. politics through your diligence. That may alleviate your despair somewhat.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

i started out feeling the same way as well as our young friend but look at me now. i've tried to do something about things. :)

theres something else i've noticed.

close to 50% of UN members don't vote personally. the closest a lot of them get to voting is endorsing their delegate.

i'm not sure what the reason is for this but since a lot of these players are still at school perhaps they don't get the time to play and their nations just fade away.

i'm sure theres more reasons but i can't think of them at the moment.

i'm not sure what the reason is for this but since a lot of these players are still at school perhaps they don't get the time to play and their nations just fade away.

i'm sure theres more reasons but i can't think of them at the moment.
OOC: As you said there is real life constraints (not just school kids), disinterest in the UN, forgetfulness (I'm looking at you Enn), and people - like myself - abstain for political reasons.

(Sigh) If I had a quarter for every time someone posted this same tired rant. I must have seen it half a dozen times in just the past few months. On both the resolutions I sponsored, some idiot wandered in to the discussion to inform us: "I oppose this, but I realize it will pass, because the UN just votes yes on everything."

Both times the resolution failed.

Hmm. Guess the UN isn't always a mindless "Just Say Yes!" group.

(Sigh) If I had a quarter for every time someone posted this same tired rant. I must have seen it half a dozen times in just the past few months. On both the resolutions I sponsored, some idiot wandered in to the discussion to inform us: "I oppose this, but I realize it will pass, because the UN just votes yes on everything."

Both times the resolution failed.

Hmm. Guess the UN isn't always a mindless "Just Say Yes!" group.

That is a good point.

Though wouldn't it be nice if every person who issued a "I oppose this, but I realize it will pass, because all resolutions ALWAYS pass" was charged that quarter and then that quarter would be donated to a fund to create NationStates II? ;)