NationStates Jolt Archive

IC
Scientist and psychologists in Royal Polynesia have been studying the voting of the U.N polls for quite some time and are now prepared to deliver there verdict.

Psychologist Dr. Jefferson says;

‘I have been watching the voting for quite some time now and I have decided that there are two types of voters. We have the genuine voter, a person who reads, thinks and then decides his decision upon the facts, or lack of facts displayed. These genuine voters make up about 10% - 20% of all voters.’
‘The other type is the ‘Follow the Herd’ voter, who, rather than read the facts, simply looks to see what everyone else has voted for and selects the same answer. These people make up for about 80% - 90% of all voters.’

Dr Varagoa continues;

‘This is a very serious factor that must be debated immediately. Whilst we are by no means declaring that proposals are being allowed or disallowed due to lazy U.N members it is still a case that seems to have reared its ugly head, and rather than accuse people of ‘Following the Herd’ we invite you to, in a polite manor of course, discuss you opinions on this matter.’

This study was undertaken and delivered in accordance to the laws of Royal Polynesia and on behalf of His Royal Majesty Xavier of Royal Polynesia.

OOC
Please do remember this is JUST a theory so don't get all hot headed and mardy!!!

Doctor Leary shakes his head, "I'm afraid your scientists have it all wrong. The 'herd' voters aren't basing their votes on what the current vote is; they vote based on the title of the resolution."

Doctor Leary is correct. No one cares what the text of the resolution is. The see a title like Repeal "Sexual Freedom" and have a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG noes! Not my freedom! What a bunch of fascists!" and then they vote against it.

It's a sad state of affairs...

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Doctor Leary shakes his head, "I'm afraid your scientists have it all wrong. The 'herd' voters aren't basing their votes on what the current vote is; they vote based on the title of the resolution."

Doctor Leary is correct. No one cares what the text of the resolution is. The see a title like Repeal "Sexual Freedom" and have a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG noes! Not my freedom! What a bunch of fascists!" and then they vote against it.

It's a sad state of affairs...

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Hmm I never thought about that actually but that is a very good point. I still think people see what everyone else is doing though.

I would say it is probably a mixture of the two with the title being the primary influencial body shortly followed by what everyone else has said...Nobody likes to be wrong to a great degree so sticks with what everyone else says is right.

Xavier Etoile
King and U.N Representative
Kingdom Of Royal Polyensia

There are too many sheep. I'd love to thin the heard....


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

There are too many sheep. I'd love to thin the heard....


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I'll get the shears you grab the guillotine!

Even if the "follow the herd" theory was correct, it wouldn't be a problem. Lets say that 20% are 'genuine' voters, and based on the facts, 75% vote in favour. It could be fair to say that the 20% genuine voters are a representative sample survey of the entire UN membership, and that the 80% following the herd, were they to vote genuinely, would vote in roughly the same proportions as the genuine voters. The final result would not differ greatly.

The results would only differ if the genuine voters did not represent the rest of the UN, say, if they were different somehow. For example, they are (more) intelligent, logical, literate- in which case we still don't have a problem...

But I think the title rule is true, and a lot of proposals have taken advantage of this (naming no names) and have managed to pass laws that have little to do with the title they were presented under.

I'll get the shears you grab the guillotine!

OOC: If only....:p

Even if the "follow the herd" theory was correct, it wouldn't be a problem. Lets say that 20% are 'genuine' voters, and based on the facts, 75% vote in favour. It could be fair to say that the 20% genuine voters are a representative sample survey of the entire UN membership, and that the 80% following the herd, were they to vote genuinely, would vote in roughly the same proportions as the genuine voters. The final result would not differ greatly.

The results would only differ if the genuine voters did not represent the rest of the UN, say, if they were different somehow. For example, they are (more) intelligent, logical, literate- in which case we still don't have a problem...

But I think the title rule is true, and a lot of proposals have taken advantage of this (naming no names) and have managed to pass laws that have little to do with the title they were presented under.

Dr Jefferson;
'Surely though is say the voting was currently even, as the current proposal was for quite some time, then who knows where these random votes would head. more over the theory is the fact of biased voting going on...It would only take a few people who wish to push a vote through to be able to acheive such a task.'

Senetor Hamilton of State Affairs;
'Why this issue needs addressing we need to look at figures here people. There are 30,000 U.N members and 10% of that number is 3,000. Now lets look at the current proposal, some 10,000 people have voted in this proposal, 3,000 of which are going to be genuine votes! that means some 7,000 votes are being placed for what ever reason whether it be the title or the majority vote. 7,000 people can certainly sway any decision and if someone has the right know how we could see large regions attempting to use the 'Follow The Herd' theory to push a proposal through!'

OOC: If only....:p

OOC: Maybe we can put that through the U.N??? :D

But I think the title rule is true, and a lot of proposals have taken advantage of this (naming no names) and have managed to pass laws that have little to do with the title they were presented under.I would love to hear some examples of this.

"Individual Self-Determination" comes to mind ...

Dr Jefferson;
'Surely though is say the voting was currently even, as the current proposal was for quite some time, then who knows where these random votes would head. more over the theory is the fact of biased voting going on...It would only take a few people who wish to push a vote through to be able to acheive such a task.'

Surely if the voting was even, then the herds would be forced to think for themselves, or at the very least abstain until a visible majority was achieved? Again, problem solved.


Senetor Hamilton of State Affairs;
'Why this issue needs addressing we need to look at figures here people. There are 30,000 U.N members and 10% of that number is 3,000. Now lets look at the current proposal, some 10,000 people have voted in this proposal, 3,000 of which are going to be genuine votes! that means some 7,000 votes are being placed for what ever reason whether it be the title or the majority vote. 7,000 people can certainly sway any decision and if someone has the right know how we could see large regions attempting to use the 'Follow The Herd' theory to push a proposal through!'

3000 is still a large enough number that it would be difficult if not impossible for any one region to overly influence the vote. And if a coalition of the largest (feeder) regions (which I imagine to vote democratically but I could be making that up) were to try to do so, it would only because there was a large enough agreement to do so, implying that the proposal is probbaly deserving of that outcome.

I'm waiting to see what everyone else does before I vote on this poll.

I'm waiting to see what everyone else does before I vote on this poll.

LOL! You win!

/thread

I'm waiting to see what everyone else does before I vote on this poll.

At least I was right about it to some extent lol

We all need to get ourselves. If the UN are mindless fluffy sheep, there's shit all we can do about it. Starting yet another thread to make vague, unfounded accusations about that and rattling on about how enlightened our voting policies are is a waste of all our time. Go get a drink in the Strangers' Bar or something.

Go get a drink in the Strangers' Bar or something.

Way ahead of you.

We all need to get ourselves. If the UN are mindless fluffy sheep, there's shit all we can do about it. Starting yet another thread to make vague, unfounded accusations about that and rattling on about how enlightened our voting policies are is a waste of all our time. Go get a drink in the Strangers' Bar or something.

Who was accusing anyone of anything?

It was all theories...If you had the sense to read the title you would see it was all a theory not something to be taken seriously.

I see. What confused me was the sentence, "This is a very serious factor that must be debated immediately." I realize now I misinterpreted it, and that it in fact meant, "This is not a very serious factor at all." My English is at fault on this one.

I see. What confused me was the sentence, "This is a very serious factor that must be debated immediately." I realize now I misinterpreted it, and that it in fact meant, "This is not a very serious factor at all." My English is at fault on this one.

It's alright.

Appology accepted

Better check your sarcasm detector; I think it's on the fritz.

http://home.student.uu.se/hape2405/aabf18_sarcasm_detector.jpg

We all need to get ourselves. If the UN are mindless fluffy sheep, there's shit all we can do about it. Starting yet another thread to make vague, unfounded accusations about that and rattling on about how enlightened our voting policies are is a waste of all our time. Go get a drink in the Strangers' Bar or something.

With all respect to our distinguished colleague and friend from Gruenberg, we believe this comment was uncalled-for. The representative of Royal Polynesia is a new member of this Assembly and was obviously trying to start a discussion of the political mechanics at work. We commend him for his interest.

We'd prefer to see new members who take an intelligent interest in this Assembly treated with respect, not a slap.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I'm sure I'm throwing fuel on the fire, but before I got more involved in the game and the UN, I would just vote for UN resolutions based on 1. what the title was 2. who was winning. I had a tendency to vote with whoever was winning because I figured it was more prudent.

From a stats perspective, it worked out well for me, because I was happy with my nation's position. Then, I started caring more about the game and started posting on the forums.

So there is a bit of truth to what this person's saying. There's thousands of people who are in the UN, and it's presumptuos to say that they all follow the same patterns.

I would love to hear some examples of this.

"Individual Self-Determination" comes to mind ...

Sorry, what kind of arms accord? Unconventional? Oh yeah.


I'm sure I'm throwing fuel on the fire, but before I got more involved in the game and the UN, I would just vote for UN resolutions based on 1. what the title was 2. who was winning. I had a tendency to vote with whoever was winning because I figured it was more prudent.

From a stats perspective, it worked out well for me, because I was happy with my nation's position. Then, I started caring more about the game and started posting on the forums.

So there is a bit of truth to what this person's saying. There's thousands of people who are in the UN, and it's presumptuos to say that they all follow the same patterns.

When I first joined the UN, I would do my best to vote based on the text, but sometimes I'd stumble through the legalese (I still don't know what the fuck Microcredit Bazaar does). I would feel a bit of trepination when I saw I was voting on the side that was losing, wondering why they were. On some of the longer, more wordy Resolutions especially, I'd get through a few clauses and then say "fuck all" and vote based on that.

Sorry, what kind of arms accord? Unconventional? Oh yeah.Sorry again, is my proposal somehow not about unconventional arms? I must be missing something here.

I seem to be of a rather small and unmentioned minority who just doesn't vote when I don't understand or feel like reading the actual text...

Really, if you don't know enough about the proposal to decide either for or against it, why pick? No one says you have to vote on every resolution.

S I would feel a bit of trepination when I saw I was voting on the side that was losing, wondering why they were.

Yeah man, nothing like a little drilling in the skull...

Oh, wait...

That's not what you meant. :)

Yeah man, nothing like a little drilling in the skull...

Oh, wait...

That's not what you meant. :)Hehe, I thought that too when I saw that. Although I think the word for skull-drilling is "trephination."

Trepanation, actually. The process of trepanning.

But I'm not splitting hairs here. It was funny to think of Tommo the Stout with a drillbit and a guy in a chair saying "It's this damned migraine!"

With all respect to our distinguished colleague and friend from Gruenberg, we believe this comment was uncalled-for. The representative of Royal Polynesia is a new member of this Assembly and was obviously trying to start a discussion of the political mechanics at work. We commend him for his interest.

We'd prefer to see new members who take an intelligent interest in this Assembly treated with respect, not a slap.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

What do you expect? The mans a dick.

Raymond P. Cullerier
Minister for U.N. affairs

Take your pathetic attempt at flamebaiting elsewhere.

OOC: Not flamebaiting. I'm trying to accurately represent my buddy ray. He's an asshole. So I act like an asshole.

Staggering back to the topic, which is all you can expect from me at this time of night ...

When I was a new delegate for a region I thought I had to vote on everything. The region didn't bother voting on UN topics, so I had no idea how it wanted to go. I tried to read every proposal. But sometimes the detail was daunting, sometimes the topics were simply things I didn't care about and other times, gods help me, I was too taken up with RL.

When I hadn't really made up my mind, I would look for particular nations' votes and figure, well, if they're in favour, it can't be too bad. If my "favoured nations" split, I'd try to plough through reading the debate. That usually gave me an idea of which way the peaceniks, the social-welfare mob or the internationalists were going, and I'd vote with them.

Now, of course, I read every gem-like word and weigh the arguments impartially on the scales of ... ah, what the hell. My nation votes the way I feel like voting at the time, and if I feel strongly enough about it I go hound a delegate or two.

So maybe we should be back home making our flags more exciting (Auss will no doubt volunteer) or our nations or regions more attractive to others, so they'll follow us here. Or we could be making our UN posts funnier (ah, the many dear departed) or simpler (hah!) or clearer or whatever else will attract the wanderers in the outer darkness, aka voters.

Because if somebody's actually bothering to vote, they deserve some return, not just blame. Entertainment or interest or a new way of thinking about things or a good RP idea -- or even some imaginary person to really, really dislike -- are rewards just as much as a fairer world one resolution at a time is.

OOC: Not flamebaiting. I'm trying to accurately represent my buddy ray. He's an asshole. So I act like an asshole.
If "Ray" doesn't follow the rules of the game, Jimayo's the one that gets warned. 'Roleplaying' is not an excuse to be an ass.

It seems sometimes like I'm in the minority, as I actually try to read the proposals (as painful as that can be sometimes) and understand them before voting on them. As a relatively new member here, I admit I did feel like I had to vote on every single one...but not voting if you don't understand it sounds like a better choice. If you recommend that to some of the more "challenged" voters, though, you'll probably get accused of trying to limit their right to vote or some such nonsense.

If "Ray" doesn't follow the rules of the game, Jimayo's the one that gets warned. 'Roleplaying' is not an excuse to be an ass.

So some get to flame while roleplaying while others do not?

So some get to flame while roleplaying while others do not?It's not flaming when you are actually roleplaying. Hiding behind your IC mask because you think it'll give you license to snipe at other players (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11899598&postcount=30), however, is not allowed.

Your nation has existed for ~ 1 month, and it claims it has been studying the UN for some time?

Heh.

Your nation has existed for ~ 1 month, and it claims it has been studying the UN for some time?

Heh.

As opposed to your two months? Run along.

I don't think he stated that he was looking that hard into himself.

Anyways, here's what mua thinks. I believe that a test could be done to prove this theory true or false. Right now, there's no substantial evidence. Why don't we take away the shown voting for a couple of proposals and see what happens then. Something might happen, and if it's more mixed results, than the follow the herd theory could be proven true.

This does require a little code change to take it out, and a little more to add it back in.

This does require a little code change to take it out, and a little more to add it back in.

Which is exactly why it's not going to happen, there's no way that the admins are going to change the code just to test a theory.

This does require a little code change to take it out, and a little more to add it back in.Ah yes... "a little code change". The rallying cry of people who don't code.

As opposed to your two months? Run along.I don't recall being as arrogant as to try and make observations or anything of the sort whilst so "young."

God forbid, if I ever do try before I am in a position to be qualified to make such studies, then feel free to try and smack me down again. Till then, I kindly request the representative from Cluichstan keep his comments to himself.

I remember cluich when he was a wee newcomer. He was not nearly so obnoxous then. He's really a cute little bunny trying to be all hardcore.

Back on topic - it's more a case of some people read the titles, and base their vote on that. Or, it's a case of people not thinking of any specific reason to oppose a proposal, and voting for. In reality it should also be a case of finding a reason to support a proposal as well. People forget there are 3 options when voting - the choice not to vote is an option.

I don't recall being as arrogant as to try and make observations or anything of the sort whilst so "young."

God forbid, if I ever do try before I am in a position to be qualified to make such studies, then feel free to try and smack me down again. Till then, I kindly request the representative from Cluichstan keep his comments to himself.

Request denied.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN