NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,
I'm the Imperials never posted before, etc. etc.
I just thought I'd bring it to the attention of you lovely people on the forum that the UN recently seems to have fallen to this horrible bureaucratic bug of repealing resolutions simply to replace them with slightly refined ones. Now, I'm not sure if anybody cares, but given how difficult it is to get through a proposal, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to try and get some significant proposals through, and perhaps 'give the other proposals a chance' (given that the UN does nothing, it's sort of a defunct phrase).
It seems to me that every time a proposal is made, one repealing it comes within a few weeks because of a typographical error or some pedantic point of law. What is the point of changing it when really, (even as there is little point), you could be passing resolutions that show how very informed and opinionated we clever NS people are. It's a lot more interesting to vote on contentious issues to see where public opinion lies, than it is to vote on say, repealing an issue about the right to divorce because somebody thinks that it's an inefficient proposal.
So, i suppose this is simply a plea for some sanity to return and to make better, more important, more informed resolutions, lest people begin to get sick of the UN, because of its seemingly useless nature. (much like real life)

I just thought I'd bring it to the attention of you lovely people on the forum that the UN recently seems to have fallen to this horrible bureaucratic bug of repealing resolutions simply to replace them with slightly refined ones.

Really? The Biological Weapons Ban, the World Media Act, and Representation in Taxation were all substantially different from the original resolutions they benefitted from the repeal of.

Now, I'm not sure if anybody cares, but given how difficult it is to get through a proposal, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to try and get some significant proposals through, and perhaps 'give the other proposals a chance' (given that the UN does nothing, it's sort of a defunct phrase).
It seems to me that every time a proposal is made, one repealing it comes within a few weeks because of a typographical error or some pedantic point of law. What is the point of changing it when really, (even as there is little point), you could be passing resolutions that show how very informed and opinionated we clever NS people are. It's a lot more interesting to vote on contentious issues to see where public opinion lies, than it is to vote on say, repealing an issue about the right to divorce because somebody thinks that it's an inefficient proposal.

You want 'contentious issues'?

Should child molesters be granted inviolable right to access children?

That, to me, is a contentious issue. And it's what the current repeal is discussing.

So, i suppose this is simply a plea for some sanity to return and to make better, more important, more informed resolutions, lest people begin to get sick of the UN, because of its seemingly useless nature. (much like real life)

It is hard to make better resolutions when there exists on the books obstacles to doing that. The people who repeal and replace aren't trying to make laws worse: they are trying to make better, more important, more informed resolutions. Given the rules on duplication and contradiction, it just isn't possible to do this sometimes without removing damaging resolutions. People have been known to make mistakes. Getting rid of mistakes from international law seems like quite a good idea to me.

Finally, we don't have to disagree. Just post your proposals on the forum, and we get cracking discussing them instead.

Wasn't it you, Gruen, my friend, who suggested yesterday that we simply ignore these trolling threads and let them fall off the first page? ;)

I don't think he's a troll.
Hi,
I'm the Imperials never posted before, etc. etc.Welcome to the UN, I hope you enjoy your stay.I just thought I'd bring it to the attention of you lovely people on the forum that the UN recently seems to have fallen to this horrible bureaucratic bug of repealing resolutions simply to replace them with slightly refined ones. Now, I'm not sure if anybody cares, but given how difficult it is to get through a proposal, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to try and get some significant proposals through, and perhaps 'give the other proposals a chance' (given that the UN does nothing, it's sort of a defunct phrase). I'm sure it will become less common once the bad resolutions are weeded out.It seems to me that every time a proposal is made, one repealing it comes within a few weeks because of a typographical error or some pedantic point of law.Or because the proposer of the repeal disagrees with the resolution. But these typo's and oversights could be easily fixed. Us regulars on the UN forums love to read proposals, and either rip them to shreds, or provide assistance on improvement. We can't help it if nations choose not to communicate on here.What is the point of changing it when really, (even as there is little point), you could be passing resolutions that show how very informed and opinionated we clever NS people are.I'm a little cynical about the collective intelligence of the UN, and I know I'm not the only one.It's a lot more interesting to vote on contentious issues to see where public opinion lies, than it is to vote on say, repealing an issue about the right to divorce because somebody thinks that it's an inefficient proposal.But contentious issues are more likely to create a spate of repeals - the more contentious they are, the less likely the consensus, and the more likely the repeal.So, i suppose this is simply a plea for some sanity to return and to make better, more important, more informed resolutions, lest people begin to get sick of the UN, because of its seemingly useless nature. (much like real life)You've got to tell the 30000 UN members out there the same message, we account for a tiny minority of them.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

(Feb 2003...no, I don't think he's a troll. Even so, quiet Cluich! Pointing out my contradictions is verboten.)

OOC: Didn't say the poster was a troll, merely that the thread itself. And it's my job to point out your contradictions, Gruen. It's in my job description, in fact. ;)

We welcome the comments of the honorable representative of The Imperials. Anything which causes us to question what we're doing -- and does so in a reasonable and polite way -- is worth thinking about. That said, we must disagree.

If you look at the past few repeals that have been adopted, we think there were far better reasons for most than "a typographical error or some pedantic point of law". "Ban Chemical Weapons" was repealed because it failed to recognize legitimate uses of riot control agents. "Solar Panels" was so badly flawed that its own author stated his support for a repeal before the resolution was even passed. "Protection of Dolphins" was repealed because it was deemed by most to have been made unnecessary by a subsequent resolution. "UCPL" was repealed because it established completely unrealistic requirements and stood in the way of potential worthwhile proposals on intellectual property protection.

As for the current repeal effort on "Right to Divorce", our support for the repeal is not on the grounds that it is inefficient. We believe it is positively dangerous, as it fails to make proper provisions for protection of the children of divorce.

We agree with the honorable representative that it would be nice if the NSUN could confine itself to considering new, positive legislation. Unfortunately, the inability to amend resolutions makes repeals a necessary evil.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

(Feb 2003...no, I don't think he's a troll. Even so, quiet Cluich! Pointing out my contradictions is verboten.)

crikey..i've been here this long?
sorry if i came across as trolling. I just felt compelled to rant a little bit. Anyway, i shall let you all enjoy the forums. It's not really my place; I enjoy the silliness of NS too much to get tied up in yet another forum.
Thanks to people who replied nicely, and shame on the people who didnt ;p

crikey..i've been here this long?
sorry if i came across as trolling. I just felt compelled to rant a little bit. Anyway, i shall let you all enjoy the forums. It's not really my place; I enjoy the silliness of NS too much to get tied up in yet another forum.
Thanks to people who replied nicely, and shame on the people who didnt ;p

The world, and especially this august body could use some more silliness. So come on in. I've even got the perfect welcoming present for you.*whistles innnocently**hiding custard pie behind back for a nice rousing game of Pie in the Face.*:D
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Could there be a resolution that would make it easier to make minor ammendments to prior resoltutions?

Could there be a resolution that would make it easier to make minor ammendments to prior resoltutions?
As amendments are forbidden due to game mechanics reasons, no.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Imperials is absolutely right, the UN is nothing but a bunch of anal little nerds flexing their e-penises and passing off every other resolution to create the illusion that they have a clue what they are talking about.