NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I begin, I want to mention that this is OOC, and that I'm ignorant of the rules of this forum for the most part. If I'm violating any such rules, i.e. All new topics in this forum must be proposals, and this type of topic should be taken up in such and such forum instead, please move it to where it belongs and notify me of the location via telegram or email. Any other such violation I'm not aware of would also be preferred to have me notified and corrected.


It seems to me that a strikingly large number of nations seem to just vote against whatever subject is up without actually reading it first.

This notion comes to me by way of noticing how few things get passed by such a large margin (1000+) even when they seem to be good ideas that would do nothing but benefit the general welfare.

On top of that, I look through the list of all the nations and most seem to be nothing but jokes, or taken to even further lengths, experiments someone is creating on how corrupt and evil a government someone can create. This may explain the huge amount of what I consider to be irresponsible use of a vote, and while I may be out of line in saying this, I was under the impression that the majority of the people here are somewhat like me - slightly to largely democratic and left-leaning (add "baby-eating liberal" where necessary), which is one more reason for me to be confused as to why many seemingly left-wing and idealistic (I use the term loosely, for the most part) proposals are being rejected.

Then again, I could be incredibly wrong on all accounts. It could be that I don't pay enough attention to the forums or the UN resolutions. It could be that I misjudged many people on these forums, for which I apologize if I have. It could be that I didn't understand the proposals I saw and misunderstood them. Any of these things are possible, but it is how I see it.

Again, if I've erred in any of these counts, please correct me. I make no stand in being infallable or statement that I'm never wrong, and I'd not consider it more an embarassment to be amended rather than to be led on in my ignorance.

Heh-heh. We get these sort of threads fairly regularly, and I clicked on it expecting it to be the usual illiterate rant...but this is actually a very interesting read. Furthermore, we usually get complaints that everyone just votes 'for' - this is the first I've seen going the other way.

I would think the main factor in your assessment is twofold: firstly, many people feel the UN is running out of ideas and, secondly, they're fed up with all the repeals. This means they're less receptive to the new votes. Then there's something called Gatesville. It's a big region, with several affiliate regions, and it basically votes against everything.

There have been some very big margins - the Tsunami Warning Center, Outlaw Pedophilia, Female Genital Mutilation, Repeal "DVD Region Removal" - but of late the issues have either been too divisive (abortion, terrorism, union rights) or too...well, boring.

I'd be interested to hear what others think because, as I say, however many "omg everyone just votes for" types we get, this is the first I've seen complaining about tendencies to vote against. Interesting.

I can understand how such a monotonous task would wear on one's mind, especially after voting for something many times, and then having to vote against the repeal many more times. Some would lose interest, some (like Gatesville) would become slightly vengeful in their attitudes toward any and all proposals.

And actually from what I understand, the US Senate does this on occasion.

It fills me with so much joy when Gatesville gets free press, and we thank the Delegate of Gruenberg for bringing us up.

Delegate of Szanth, there are indeed a great many UN nations out there who have grown rather tired of the excesses of the UN. It is evil and corrupt nations like mine that don't care for the majority of people who post on this forum sticking their nose in exactly how brutal I am to my citizens. Trust me, a Psychotic Dictatorship government is difficult to maintain while being a member of the UN.

Your assertion that most people here are largely democratic liberals is correct. However, the NationStates world is a much, much larger place than just this forum. The Gatesville voting bloc, or the anti-UN voting bloc as it were, has been gaining strength for some time now. Part of the reason, much to the irritation of many UN fluffies, that so many repeals have been passed recently is because of we, the evil and malicious anti-UN crowd.

You've also noticed that many resolutions of late have only passed by the smallest of margins. Once again we are to blame. Rest assured though, we don't dislike all UN resolutions; just ninety-nine percent of new ones and ninety-nine percent of old ones. We don't just blindly click the "Against" button either. It is always a calculated decision. Unfortunately for the other side, we aren't as stupid as most people would like to think. If we were, well, I doubt we'd attract as many people as we do, defeat as many resolutions as we do, and pass as many repeals as we do.

As I stated to the fine Delegate of Gruenberg, I am always happy to get the free press. It gives the few who are brave enough to venture here and yet who don't wear fuzzy bunny outfits hope that not everyone wishes to dictate to others their elitist views. I save that for my citizens, not for other nations.

I hope I've been able to shed some light on the recent turn of events in the UN. Hopefully you'll be seeing alot more of it in the future.

OOC:

I suppose it was inevitable that, eventually, someone would take the opposite view expressed by seemingly all previous UN 'rants'. No offence, Szanth - your points were made very reasonably. I empathise, my nation being a fluffy sort.

Oh, Noctaurus: is The Holy Word still knocking about? It always amused and impressed me that a hardcore left-wing anarchist RP'd a fanatical anti-UN theocracy.

First, we'd like to assure the honorable representative of Szanth that his posting is completely at home in this forum and we welcome his considered and well-expressed expression of concern.

We share the surprise of our respected colleague from Gruenberg that the comment focuses on votes against resolutions. He is quite correct that the common complaint has been that members vote unintelligently for measures.

There are many factors involved, we believe. We'll leave it to others to discuss them. We would like to point the honorable representative toward a resource that we feel would be useful in his further consideration of the issue. The NSWiki has an NSUN Timeline, listing all resolutions which have been brought to a vote -- passed and failed -- with voting statistics. Very interesting:

NS Wiki UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Welcome to the UN Szanth, your posting is very promising and I hope you stick around and contribute :)

Ecopoeia, I'm afraid The Holy Word has left us for the mystical realm known as "Real Life" or some such. We still have our lovable fluffy The Conservative Front though. I'm sure you would enjoy a good chat with him. He has some very interesting views.

Ecopoeia, I'm afraid The Holy Word has left us for the mystical realm known as "Real Life" or some such. We still have our lovable fluffy The Conservative Front though. I'm sure you would enjoy a good chat with him. He has some very interesting views.
I'm sure he has... cheers for the info.

I appreciate the positive response. While it was probably a case of me not noticing the ratio of passed to negated proposals, I've still been clarified to the existence of Gatesville and how they operate, so it's not an entirely useless mistake on my part.

I'll keep these aspects of NS in mind when I vote, and I thank everyone for their attention.

It seems to me that a strikingly large number of nations seem to just vote against whatever subject is up without actually reading it first.

I always thought it was the opposite, that a strinkingly large number of nations seem to vote for whatever subject is up (either resolution or repeal) without actually reading it first.

I think, in the end both opinions are incorrect, although I would not give the average deligate the dignity of actually reading the proposals. (These deligates never read this forum so if you are reading this obviously I'm not talking about you, the intelligent reader.) Clearly there are large blocks that vote in one way or the other. Clearly there are those who only look at the title and vote based on their first impression on the resolution or repeal.

There have been a lot of close votes of late. Far from thinking that this is an indication that the system is not working, I believe that it is a indication that the system is working. I remember when a resolution passed by a large margin was repealed by an equally large margin the next week. Did all those delegates actually have a "revelation" about the resolution after it had been passed or were they simply voting yes to both the resolution and the repeal of the same blindly? Unfortunately we will never know. Fortunately I haven't seen that sort of stupidity in months.

The Socialist Republic dislikes most United Nations resolutions for the simple reason that it is very infrequently, in our belief, that an international body is better equipped to make decisions for people than the independent nation-state. Though this belief is far from applying across the board, we oppose well over half of proposals and established U.N. law. We are supportive of the United Nations as an organization concerned with international law and universal domestic issues, so we prefer to act independently rather than joining large objective-driven groups. However, the Socialist Republic does not comply with U.N. law that is irreconcilably disagreeable to our laws and customs.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

However, the Socialist Republic does not comply with U.N. law that is irreconcilably disagreeable to our laws and customs.You do understand of course, that from a game mechanics aspect you cannot ignore a resolution. It passes, and your stats are affected. There is no option.

Of course, you can pretend from a RP aspect, if there are convincing loopholes :)

You do understand of course, that from a game mechanics aspect you cannot ignore a resolution. It passes, and your stats are affected. There is no option.

Of course, you can pretend from a RP aspect, if there are convincing loopholes :)
That's a common sentiment, but I don't share it either way. First of all, though your "stats" may be affected, it has no impact on your nation's discription and you can still pass laws via issues in direct contradiction of U.N. law. The minimal subtantive gameplay effect of any resolution is easily reversed, either directly or indirectly, and though the game rules may say you can't disobey, the game itself seems to disagree. Secondly, you can roleplay whatever the heck you want. Just as in real life when the laws of your country are not followed by all of its citizens, not all states follow the law of the U.N., in real life or in NationStates. Arguments that Xanthal has to go one way just because the United Nations says so are throughly rejected on my end. Nobody can be automatically forced to comply with U.N. law, especially not in the roleplaying portion of the game. It's a matter of choice and realism.

That's a common sentiment, but I don't share it either way. First of all, though your "stats" may be affected, it has no impact on your nation's discriptionActually, it can do.The rest you are right about, of course.

Actually, it can do.The rest you are right about, of course.
Can it? I didn't believe so. Give me an example.

Can it? I didn't believe so. Give me an example.Given that a resolution can affect your stats, it can thus affect what is dependent on them - such as the UN category.

Depending on the impact the resolution has, such changes to stats may be minimal (and thus only affect you if your borderline on going over to another category anyway). Proof is something I am lacking, I hope confirmation will come from elsewhere :)

It would be an interesting experiment though, to have a UN state which did not act on issues, but merely followed resolutions, and see how that state got affected.

I've noticed that also.


Although what I did when I was the UN Deligate for my region is I set up a poll about the current Resolution at Vote the day it went up. And I voted however the people in my region wanted me to vote. Although now that i am not the UN Deligate, I read the proposal/resolution through and if it doesn't help my nation, I vote AGAINST it, but if I feel that it helps my nation I vote FOR it. Although there are several things that personally I find it boarderline between "not helping" and "helping" or they are issues that i feel should fall under NatSov and not under the ideals and needs for UN Intervention.

Given that a resolution can affect your stats, it can thus affect what is dependent on them - such as the UN category.

Depending on the impact the resolution has, such changes to stats may be minimal (and thus only affect you if your borderline on going over to another category anyway). Proof is something I am lacking, I hope confirmation will come from elsewhere :)

It would be an interesting experiment though, to have a UN state which did not act on issues, but merely followed resolutions, and see how that state got affected.
Well I know that the stats are affected; I was referring to the actual written discription.

I always thought it was the opposite, that a strinkingly large number of nations seem to vote for whatever subject is up (either resolution or repeal) without actually reading it first.

I think, in the end both opinions are incorrect, although I would not give the average deligate the dignity of actually reading the proposals. (These deligates never read this forum so if you are reading this obviously I'm not talking about you, the intelligent reader.) Clearly there are large blocks that vote in one way or the other. Clearly there are those who only look at the title and vote based on their first impression on the resolution or repeal.

There have been a lot of close votes of late. Far from thinking that this is an indication that the system is not working, I believe that it is a indication that the system is working. I remember when a resolution passed by a large margin was repealed by an equally large margin the next week. Did all those delegates actually have a "revelation" about the resolution after it had been passed or were they simply voting yes to both the resolution and the repeal of the same blindly? Unfortunately we will never know. Fortunately I haven't seen that sort of stupidity in months.

We would agree with most, if not all of the honorable representative's comments. On the issue of repeals, though, we believe there's another aspect of the situation that suggests voters may sometimes have a "revelation" of sorts.

A member goes to the NationStates United Nations page and sees a resolution up for voting. Although we agree with the honorable representative's suspicions about how many actually read the resolution carefully, we'll give the member the benefit of the doubt. We'll assume he does give it a good reading. But what is he reading? Everything he sees is positive. If there are drawbacks or problems with the resolution, the author certainly isn't going to mention them in the resolution text. A vote is cast for the resolution.

Two weeks later, a repeal of that resolution is brought to a vote. Our same member goes to the United Nations page and reads that. Now he's introduced to the problems the resolution causes. He has a chance to see the other side of the coin. He votes for the repeal.

We think this hypothesis is supported by the fact that polls taken in this forum often have dramatically different results than the voting on the resolution. If members visit the debate thread, they see both sides and can consider both sides. But the statistics show that only a small percentage of those voting read those debate threads.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

It would be an interesting experiment though, to have a UN state which did not act on issues, but merely followed resolutions, and see how that state got affected.
Sovereign UN Territory is one such nation, founded some time in 2004.