NationStates Jolt Archive

It struck me that, you'd think, the vast majority would vote for "Banning Necrophelia". And yet, I check the vote count and it is only passing (approx) 3,000-1,000. A sizable lead, but not a vast majority, so it struck me, why are so many people voting against this resolution? Why do so many people vote against resolutions that seem almost "duh." Shoo-ins, so to speak...

To summarize, who are the 10%-25% who (seemingly) always vote against?

People who do not believe that the purpose of UN is dictate other nations their religion.

Why do so many people vote against resolutions that seem almost "duh." Shoo-ins, so to speak...

Voting against a resolution to "Ban Necrophilia" is not necessarily a vote for necrophilia. There are other factors involved. I don't think the resolution at vote is a shoo-in at all. In fact, I find it to be a waste of the UN's time, micromanagement on an international scale, and a total non-issue that could be addressed quite easily on the national or even local level.

I had fond hopes that the voters would agree with me. Seems I'm destined for disappointment.

Voting against a resolution to "Ban Necrophilia" is not necessarily a vote for necrophilia. There are other factors involved. I don't think the resolution at vote is a shoo-in at all. In fact, I find it to be a waste of the UN's time, micromanagement on an international scale, and a total non-issue that could be addressed quite easily on the national or even local level.

I agree (although I voted for it because, well, digging up corpses and doing them is just too gross, even for this socialist, and spreads diseases). And wouldn't be surprised to see opposition from the elite NSers, who heavily thought on resolutions, but it struck me the vast majoirty of 'skim and vote" UNers would support this proposal based solely on the title, I was surprised by the vote coutn and thought discussing how/why people vote, active UNers and casual players both, would be interesting. (it's not about Ban Necophelia specifically).

It struck me that, you'd think, the vast majority would vote for "Banning Necrophelia". And yet, I check the vote count and it is only passing (approx) 3,000-1,000. A sizable lead, but not a vast majority, so it struck me, why are so many people voting against this resolution? Why do so many people vote against resolutions that seem almost "duh."It's called disagreeing with you. People are still allowed to do that, I imagine?

To summarize, who are the 10%-25% who (seemingly) always vote against?

I suspect different groups of players / nations. The reasons above are a few that this particular resolution isn't being supported. Add to that the possibility that there still remain some statwankers ... so Moral Decency and International Security resolutions tend to be zapped by liberals who refuse to read (I can point you to one region where the Delegate used to encourage knee-jerk thinking), while the opposite is likely true of the Social Justice and to a lesser extend Furtherment of Democracy resolutions. That said, I think it is great when a player sticks to his or her ideals ... I just prefer it when they can point to the text of the resolution for justification of his/her nation's behavior. I'd much rather let the moderators worry about proposal categories and strengths, while allowing players to explore the text and RP accordingly.

Anyways, in the case of repeals, that base 10% AGAINST is probably largely the same 10% FOR resolutions --- and the base 10% FOR a repeal is probably more likely to be part of the 10% AGAINST a resolution.


What is a bit more interesting is that the UN forum tends to be a bit more conservative than the overall UN. There has been at least one important exception to this -- Gruen's last resolution on Clothing. But there players weren't dummies ... many of the no votes came from governments with controled economies, they told us so in the thread.

I think there has been a trend for NO votes to become more common in the UN, and I attribute that to several things: more repeals, increasing voter burnout, more legal sounding resolutions (i.e. players taking things more seriously), and more odd subject matters.

When possible, I've included a graphic comparing the UN Forum to overall UN votes along with NSWiki resolution articles. Love and estrele (sp?) has also recently provided an analysis of the "value of a vote" which I need to crunch in Excel and get up on NSWiki.

It struck me that, you'd think, the vast majority would vote for "Banning Necrophelia". And yet, I check the vote count and it is only passing (approx) 3,000-1,000.

Your fluffy fu is very weak. There will be a large number of the fluffy vote that will vote NO immediately after seeing "Necrophilia" in the title, so grossed out will they be by this single word. There will be a smaller number who will suggest that this is not a subject for the UN. (Free trade in Hemp on the other hand ...)

No what is surprising is that there are 4000 votes so far in the first place. The feeders haven't thrown in their votes, and most of the deligates are small to mid sized in nature. This is a result of representative votes, and as such is most impressive at this stage.

It proves that necrophilia is not a dead issue! :p

So what else constitutes a shoo-in? Isn't every issue presented to the UN ultimately somehow contentious? The UN timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) is littered with well-intentioned resolutions that have been repealed, failed repeals of bad resolutions that should have succeeded, and any number of topics that you might think are a shoo-in, but I think are awful ideas. It's all about voting. Always has been.

It proves that necrophilia is not a dead issue!
You just had to take that bait, didn't you.

Voting against a resolution to "Ban Necrophilia" is not necessarily a vote for necrophilia. There are other factors involved. I don't think the resolution at vote is a shoo-in at all. In fact, I find it to be a waste of the UN's time, micromanagement on an international scale, and a total non-issue that could be addressed quite easily on the national or even local level.

I had fond hopes that the voters would agree with me. Seems I'm destined for disappointment.
Actually I agree with you, yet the idiocy of the arguements against that are being presented have forced my to vote for the resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I cannot beleive that we even need a resolution passed about Necrophilia. I think that this is just plain silly and am considering not even voting, as is my right. Aren't there more pressing issues to worry about?

I cannot beleive that we even need a resolution passed about Necrophilia. I think that this is just plain silly and am considering not even voting, as is my right. Aren't there more pressing issues to worry about?

Well, to be fair, resolutions reach the floor via endorsements. UN Delegates essentially decide which proposals will become resolutions and which ones will not -- so I dare say that 140 different UN Delegates felt that there was at least enough merit in this topic reaching the UN Floor.

That said, sometimes Delegates will endorse a proposal when they intend to vote against it ... simply to give the democratic process a chance and for the issue to receive some public debate. Sometimes a resolution has failed, only to be rewritten to incorporate constructive comments raised during the UN Floor debate.

That said, if this topic should fail (I'm not suggesting nations should vote for or against), Mikitivity does have some changes it would like in a possible replacement.

First, the subject of how the dead are treated, seems to be less of a concern for the deceased than for their suvivors. I think another way to approach this topic might be to make this have a more international focus by dealing with the rights of suvivors. If it is the custom of Miervatians that people shouldn't have sex with dead bodies, then if a Miervatian dies in another country, the resolution could call upon that nation to respect the rights of the family of the deceased and to refrain from having sex with the dead traveler.

Second, another way to deal with this might be to reaffirm that forcing another person to have sex with a dead creature should be considered molestation of the other person. Granted, I believe most of us are assuming that is already the case -- but I figured I'd add that in as a discussion point in the event it is not a base assumption here.

Third, there might actually need to be some care given towards transporting corpses. While this has little to do with necrophilia, there certainly are health risks associated with moving the dead. The UN has yet to deal with this subjet at all, and my government feels that this is actually a topic that is worthy of our consideration.

Howie T. Katzman

That said, if this topic should fail (I'm not suggesting nations should vote for or against), Mikitivity does have some changes it would like in a possible replacement.
It really should fail, because otherwise many nations will have to issue acts authorising necrophilia to circumvent this resolution, introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

First, the subject of how the dead are treated, seems to be less of a concern for the deceased than for their suvivors. I think another way to approach this topic might be to make this have a more international focus by dealing with the rights of suvivors. If it is the custom of Miervatians that people shouldn't have sex with dead bodies, then if a Miervatian dies in another country, the resolution could call upon that nation to respect the rights of the family of the deceased and to refrain from having sex with the dead traveler.

Second, another way to deal with this might be to reaffirm that forcing another person to have sex with a dead creature should be considered molestation of the other person. Granted, I believe most of us are assuming that is already the case -- but I figured I'd add that in as a discussion point in the event it is not a base assumption here.
I agree with the first proposal, in the form: "Bodies of persons deceased outside their countries should only be treated in a way compliant with the laws of the country of their citizenship.

Second is somewhat weird, because forcing anyone to do something sexual is already rape. Third is incomplete.

But first, in an extended form, would be good. Many countries also have mandatory disassembling of dead for spare parts, so a resolution should cover it all.

I cannot beleive that we even need a resolution passed about Necrophilia. I think that this is just plain silly and am considering not even voting, as is my right. Aren't there more pressing issues to worry about?
I have intially approved the resolution, but our Sanhedrin has later instructed me to withdraw my approval and abstain from voting on this issue.

As much as necrophillia is abbhorrent and repulsive, we do not want the UN to interfere with religious and ritual affairs of individual nations. As much as the Lord of Hosts detests and abbhors necrophillic, bestial and other abominable corruptness and immorality in sex and other aspects of life, we do realize other religions, such as that of the Zibzigzuluastry in the Primitive Jungles of the Plaiadic Islands, see necrophillia as an essential rite to ensure the passage of the soul of the departed to Enternal Life.

Thus, while do agreeing in prrinciple with the resolution, we withdrew our approval anf abstained from voting on this sensitive issue.

On second thoughts, I'll be publishing this in the Official Debate thread.

(although I voted for it because, well, digging up corpses and doing them is just too gross, even for this socialist, and spreads diseases).

That's 100% the reason NOT to vote for OR against anything. What's "gross" to one individual isn't the basis upon which to formulate governing laws. If I were to throw up a proposal to ban black people because I found them "gross" (I don't, but it's the most shocking thing I could come up with. Please don't harp on the example material ), it'd be just as bad.

Necrophilia is a sexual preference. The real thing is wheather or not the necrophiliac has legal control of the body, which is NOT a NSUN matter.

And since this is really just turning into a second debate thread...